Oral Answers to Questions

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Renewable Energy

Jeff Ennis: What steps he is taking to enable the use of waste to provide energy in Northern Ireland.

Angela Smith: In February, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State launched the £59 million environment and renewable energy fund, which includes an allocation of £18 million for the development of energy from waste.

Jeff Ennis: I thank my hon. Friend for that positive reply. Can she give the House an assurance that renewables will be at the heart of future electricity generation in Northern Ireland?

Angela Smith: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that reassurance. The key objectives of the energy market is that the energy supply is competitive, sustainable and reliable. The reliability of supply is fundamental. In addition to the £59 million from the renewable energy fund launched by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, £150 million from a new private sector fund for renewable energy has also been announced. That gives an indication of how crucial renewables are to energy generation and how important we think it is to focus on them.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: As well as needing to diversify our energy generation, there is also a need to address the issue of waste management in Northern Ireland. The Minister will be aware of a recent report by the Belfast Hills Partnership, which raised serious concerns about the proliferation of landfill sites in the Belfast hills, and the potential long-term damage that that will do to the environment. Will she take that into account in pushing forward an agenda for renewable energy, including the use of waste in energy generation?

Angela Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that comment. As he knows, I met residents of the area some time ago to discuss their concerns. It is important that we look at energy regeneration to see how we can address the waste problem. It is not sustainable for us to keep digging holes in the ground and piling waste into them. If we can find alternative ways to use that waste which lead to a cut in the cost of electricity as well, that would be an important contribution to the environmental debate.

Alasdair McDonnell: Is the Minister aware that the biggest problem with waste management in Northern Ireland is the total failure of Government Departments, specifically the Department of the Environment, to offer the option of purchase or re-use of construction waste? That has been a failure for some time. Can the Minister give us some assurance that that issue will be tackled?

Angela Smith: The Minister with responsibility for the environment, my noble Friend Lord Rooker, is keen to ensure that we tackle all waste streams. I will draw the hon. Gentleman's comments to his attention.

Lady Hermon: Since North Down borough council is planning to have a new state of the art waste treatment centre up and running next year, would the Minister kindly agree to meet representatives of the council to discuss the much needed funding of the solar panels needed for that project?

Angela Smith: At this stage in the process, no projects have been agreed, but I would be happy to meet representatives from the council, particularly as they seem to be so forward-looking at how we can produce energy from environmental sources.

Laurence Robertson: The hon. Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff   Ennis) is correct to stress the importance of renewable energy. In Great Britain, we produce only slightly more than 3 per cent. of our electricity from renewable sources, in spite of an existing renewables obligation. What can the Government do to ensure that the performance in Northern Ireland will be better than it is in Great Britain? In Northern Ireland only 3 per cent. of electricity is produced from renewable sources. We need to increase that figure. What can the Government do to ensure that that percentage share increases quicker in Northern Ireland than it has done in Great Britain?

Angela Smith: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear the first answer that I gave. The announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of the new £59 million fund has already levered in £150 million. That shows the determination of Government to put our money where our commitment is. We have made that money available and made a financial commitment to renewables projects, and the hon. Gentleman will see the impact of that. I hope he will not vote against the increase in the budget for renewables.

Decommissioning

Mark Lancaster: What estimate he has made of the quantities of arms and explosives put beyond use by the Provisional IRA in each of the acts of decommissioning that took place between October 2001 and September 2005.

Philip Dunne: What estimate he has made of the quantities of arms and explosives put beyond use by the Provisional IRA in each of the acts of decommissioning that took place between October 2001 and September 2005.

Peter Hain: In September last year, the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning witnessed a momentous act of decommissioning, and declared in January that "all the arms under the IRA's control were decommissioned in September", under its supervision. The 10th report of the Independent Monitoring Commission published earlier today states that any weapons reported as having been retained
	"would have been withheld under local control despite the instructions of the leadership".
	It goes on to say that
	"the amount of un-surrendered material was not significant in comparison to what was decommissioned."

Mark Lancaster: Given that the Secretary of State has just acknowledged that some weapons may have been retained by IRA cells, does he still consider those IRA cells to be a terrorist threat, and if not, why not?

Peter Hain: The IMC is the definitive body on that matter, so the hon. Gentleman does not have to take my word for it, and it has expressly said that the IRA poses no terrorist threat at all. Para 2.15 of the report states:
	"We are not aware of current terrorist, paramilitary or violent activity sanctioned by the leadership. We have had no indications in the last three months of training, engineering activity, recent recruitment or targeting for the purposes of attack. There has now been a substantial erosion in PIRA's capacity to return to a military campaign without a significant period of build-up, which in any event we do not believe they have any intentions of doing."
	That is a definitive statement, and I could quote many others. The IMC says that the IRA poses no terrorist, violent or paramilitary threat, and I endorse the IMC report.

Philip Dunne: What reassurances can the Secretary of State give that renegade paramilitary groups will also get involved in decommissioning? And what guidance can he give to this House that those who are complying will provide information to the police on those renegade groups?

Peter Hain: I assume that the hon. Gentleman is not talking about the Continuity IRA or the Real IRA. Those dissident groups are still a problem, as we saw when CIRA members planted a bomb in Lurgan only the other week. I assume that he is talking about IRA members who may not be in full compliance with the leadership's line. I invite him to read the IMC report, which states that
	"the leadership is engaged in a challenging task in ensuring full compliance with this strategy",
	which is the strategy of democratic politics and a peaceful objective.
	We must look at the IMC report in the context of what has been a positive and historic change. We should welcome the finding by the IMC, which is a respected independent body, that the IRA has abandoned its previous activities of violence, paramilitary action and terrorism.

Ian Paisley: The Secretary of State will be aware that the policy of the united voice of the Unionist people insisting that criminality must cease is taking effect, and we welcome the effect that it is taking. Does he feel that the Government should make a full statement listing the number of arms that have been surrendered by the IRA and change the policy that gives the general the right not to mention the number of weapons that have been decommissioned?

Peter Hain: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's point that the united pressure from the Unionist community and, for that matter, all parties in this House to end the violence and criminality is having an effect, which the IMC has reported. On the number of arms that have been decommissioned, the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning has made it clear that when all paramilitary groups, including loyalist groups, have decommissioned, it will publish a full inventory, but we need to wait for that to happen.

Patrick Cormack: Is it not abundantly clear that criminality has not ceased? Does the Secretary of State agree that it is inconceivable that those involved in criminality should be involved in the government of any part of the United Kingdom?

Peter Hain: The IMC report is interesting and welcome, and it reflects the pressure exerted by the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and by the hon. Gentleman in his capacity as Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. The association between criminality, paramilitary groups and politics must disappear from Northern Ireland. Paragraph 2.16 of the IMC report states:
	"We have found signs that PIRA continues to seek to stop criminal activity by its members and to prevent them from engaging in it. We believe that some senior PIRA members may be playing a key role in this . . . That said, there are indications that some members, including some senior ones (as distinct from the organisation itself) are still involved in crime, including offences such as fuel laundering, money laundering, extortion, tax evasion and smuggling. Some of these activities are deeply embedded in the culture of a number of communities, not least in the border areas, and increasing proportions of the proceeds may now be going to individuals rather than to the organisation."
	In other words, as regards the hon. Gentleman's point that there should be no criminality associated with the IRA, which has been repeatedly demanded by Members of this House, that appears now to be the case according to the IMC, although some local members may still be defying the leadership's line and engaging in it, in which case we will bear down on them as we have done in recent months.

David Anderson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the IMC report on criminality is a step in the right direction? When he comes to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, will he discuss with us information that we have received about some worrying concerns that have been expressed by senior members of the security forces?

Peter Hain: Of course. I take heart not only from the direction that the IMC reports today about an end to criminality by members of the Provisional IRA, but from a very significant statement issued by the IRA over Easter, in which it says:
	"The IRA has no responsibility for the tiny number of former republicans who have embraced criminal activity. They do so for self-gain. We repudiate this activity and denounce those involved."
	That is an important statement and we will make sure that everybody is held to it.

David Lidington: Like the Secretary of State, I welcome the good news in today's IMC report. However, paragraph 2.17 of the report makes it clear that the weapons that were not decommissioned are not under the control of the Provisional IRA's leadership. That being the case, is the Secretary of State confident that the people who hold on to those weapons do not themselves pose a terrorist threat? What other reason could they have for failing to decommission them?

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly fair point. I know that he is just as concerned about this matter as I am and that he has raised it repeatedly on the Floor of the House, as he is fully entitled to and is proper. All that I can go by is the IMC report. It is the definitive body in this respect. It has said that the IRA poses no terrorist threat, and it has taken into account the full totality of the picture, including the points that the hon. Gentleman made.

David Lidington: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. I, too, welcomed the statement by the leader of Sinn Fein and by the IRA leadership over Easter. Does he agree, however, that it should be the duty of any politician who is committed to exclusively democratic and peaceful means of pursuing their objectives to ensure that any act of criminality or withholding of illegal arms should be reported to the police so that proper criminal proceedings can then take place?

Peter Hain: Everybody, especially elected politicians—that is a point that the hon. Gentleman has consistently made, and I agree with him—or those seeking ministerial office should indeed comply fully with the police. If they know of criminality, they ought to report it—absolutely. I take heart from the statements made not only by the IRA leadership, but by the president of Sinn Fein, in repeatedly condemning criminality and saying that it has no part in a future for republicans.

Gonadotropin Products

Iris Robinson: What gonadotropin products are used by the regional fertility clinic in Belfast.

Shaun Woodward: The regional fertility centre in Belfast advises me that it currently uses four gonadotropin products: Puregon, Gonal F, Menogon and Menopur. Puregon is currently prescribed as the product of choice.

Iris Robinson: I thank the Minister for that response. As he will know, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines on fertility treatment advise that consideration should be given to minimising costs when prescribing drugs. Certain products have been used at the regional fertility centre despite other less expensive alternatives being made available, and the total amount spent is almost half a million pounds per year. Will the Minister look into the process whereby specific products were selected, and provide advice for future practice in Northern Ireland if necessary, to ensure that costs are appropriately considered in future years?

Shaun Woodward: The hon. Lady makes a significant point about an important part of the Department's work for any couple who wants to have children and cannot. She rightly mentions spending £500,000 on the work. Given that couples are waiting to start the treatment, I suspect that there is genuine pressure to spend more, not less money.
	One of the reasons for the use of Puregon is that it is a synthetic product. The alternative products are urinary based and some people do not want to use them for health concerns and so on. However, the current tender is coming to an end and that process will be completed by 2007. In the next 12 months, I shall conduct a review with the health boards of the tendering process for such products. I want to reassure the hon. Lady that my concern in Northern Ireland is, first and foremost, to do as much as we can to help couples who cannot have children through the health service to be given access to that important treatment.

Mark Durkan: The Under-Secretary is aware from written answers that he has provided that there are geographical disparities in accessing regional fertility services. Will he tackle those when he introduces his proposals by providing a more balanced network of services? Will the proposals also address counselling and revising the criteria for qualifying for IVF?

Shaun Woodward: The hon. Gentleman has raised important points not only about counselling but regional disparity in Northern Ireland. We are currently conducting a review. The devolved Assembly and the Assembly Minister responsible for the matter put the interim arrangements in place. There are good reasons for re-examining access to fertility services and I promise the hon. Gentleman that I shall also consider access to counselling services as part of that. I believe that he will see improvements in overall access and in tackling regional disparity.

Waiting Lists

Gordon Banks: What assessment he has made of progress in reducing waiting lists for health treatment in Northern Ireland.

Shaun Woodward: This time last year, we had people waiting up to six years for in-patient treatment. As a result of policies that we announced last summer, every in-patient in Northern Ireland is now treated in less than 12 months. For hip and knee replacements, everyone is treated in less than nine months, and, for cardiac or cataract treatment, every patient waits not six years but less than six months.

Gordon Banks: What benefits will the changes and improvements—and future improvements—bring to the efficiency of the Northern Ireland economy?

Shaun Woodward: Those changes will make a huge difference to efficiencies in the Northern Ireland economy. When out-patients and in-patients have to wait six years, there are huge costs to the welfare service. However, the Secretary of State and I were convinced a year ago that a programme of investment and reform in the health service in Northern Ireland must radically change the position on waiting lists. In two years from now, no out-patient will wait six years—the maximum will be 13 weeks—and, a year from now, every in-patient will be treated in six months.

Gregory Campbell: The Under-Secretary appeared to imply that, previously, people were waiting a totally unacceptable length of time for operations and that they are now waiting a simply unacceptable length of time. In his discussions with the trusts, will he ensure that, in cases where people wait a long time for needy operations, additional resources can be deployed to clear up outstanding waiting lists?

Shaun Woodward: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point and of course those discussions should take place. However, any British Minister making such decisions is second best and soon the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will have the chance, if they want it, of getting control of the health service, running it, making the decisions and making waiting times even less.

Devolved Assembly

Mary Creagh: What recent assessment he has made of the prospects for the restoration of the devolved Assembly.

Peter Hain: The Bill to facilitate that has its Second Reading later today. It is now up to the parties themselves to decide whether they want devolved Government restored or locally unaccountable direct rule to continue.

Mary Creagh: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. Does he agree that the Independent Monitoring Commission report published today shows an historic change in the position of the IRA, and that, although a lack of trust remains in Northern Ireland, the best way to build that trust is for politicians to sit down together and discuss the way forward?

Peter Hain: I do indeed agree with my hon. Friend. The IMC report published today is extremely important. It is of an historic nature, not just because it reports an end to IRA paramilitary activity, violence and—interestingly—intelligence gathering for those purposes, but because it says that the IRA is committed to cracking down on and eliminating criminality. That creates circumstances in which there is no reason for any party not to go into the Assembly to work with the other parties to get the Executive fully restored and the institutions up and running—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber.

Nigel Dodds: Does the Secretary of State agree that, in the light of the IMC report, it would be completely unacceptable to have in government in any part of the United Kingdom those who are still linked to an organisation that is engaged in criminality, and who refuse to give their support to the police or who tell their supporters not to give information to the police? Is not that support an absolute prerequisite for people being in government in any part of the United Kingdom?

Peter Hain: On the hon. Gentleman's point about criminality, it is now clear that the Provisional IRA—and, therefore, its political link, Sinn Fein—is now committed to stamping out criminality and paramilitary activity. The only logical, sustainable long-term position for anyone seeking to perform parliamentary legislative duties or exercise ministerial office is to support the police. We will be working on that and encouraging Sinn Fein to do that.

Lembit �pik: In the long march towards a functioning Assembly, we have seendeadlines come and go. The Government's abandonment of those deadlines as they drew closer has typified the process. Will the Secretary of State accept that this has seriously compromised the credibility of the Government's deadlines? Why should we believe that his deadlines are any more robust or serious than the ones that the Government evidently did not take seriously before?

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I want to assure him, and to inform the House explicitly, that if anyone thinks that the Government are going to blink, come midnight on 24 November, they could not be more wrong. This deadline will be set in statute in the Bill that we shall debate this afternoon. All the parties need to understand that, if midnight on 24 November comes and goes and there is no restoration of the Assembly, the salaries and allowances will stop and the curtain will come down. It would be the parties themselves that had brought the curtain down, not the Government.

Rural Businesses

Eddie McGrady: If he will make a statement on the future strategy for rural business development in Northern Ireland.

David Hanson: rose[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chamber is far too noisy. That is unfair to those who are interested in Northern Ireland business.

David Hanson: The Government are committed to working across Departments. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is finalising a rural strategy for diversifying the rural economy communities, and there is ongoing co-operation with Invest Northern Ireland in supporting small businesses.

Eddie McGrady: I thank the Minister for his reply. In the context of diversification sustaining rural industry, will he explain why his noble colleague Lord Rooker, the Minister with responsibility for the environment, has turned down three modest business expansion proposals in the environs of Kilkeel town in my constituency? Those expansions would create about 40 jobs, and the environmental requirements already exist. The businesses involve precision engineering, equestrian development and turbot farming. What could be more appropriate than developing those existing businesses? Will the Minister of State ask his noble colleague to reconsider his position in view of the statement that he has just made?

David Hanson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. He will understand that my noble Friend Lord Rooker is responsible for these matters, and I understand that he has written to my hon. Friend about them. I am afraid that the position has not changed in regard to that issue, but I will certainly refer my hon. Friend's comments to my noble Friend, and I hope that he will get back to him in due course.

Serious Organised Crime

Michael Fabricant: What recent assessment he has made of the involvement of paramilitary groups in serious organised crime; and if he will make a statement.

Shaun Woodward: The 10th report of the Independent Monitoring Commission, published earlier today, said that there are signs
	that PIRA continues to seek to stop criminal activity by its members and to prevent them from engaging in it.
	The report also indicates
	continuing efforts to reduce criminality
	by leading elements of the Ulster Defence Association.

Michael Fabricant: But that 10th report also makes seven positive suggestions as to the sorts of actions that the Government should take to stop criminality. Will the Minister now confirm that all seven points will be taken up by his Department?

Shaun Woodward: The hon. Gentleman rightly draws attention to the need to address that issue. I assure the House, as security Minister, that it is the first and foremost priority of my Department in Northern Ireland. A number of elements are combating organised and paramilitary crime in Northern Ireland, including the Assets Recovery Agency, and we work in co-operation on that with the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Criminal Assets Bureau in the Republic. It is essential that we crack down on serious organised crime, and if he reads the eighth, ninth and the current 10th IMC report, he will recognise that huge progress is being made. There is more to make, but we are committed to making it.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked

Engagements

Bernard Jenkin: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 26 April.

Tony Blair: Before listing my engagements, I want to express on behalf of Members on both sides of the House our sadness at the death of Peter Law. He was a conscientious Member of Parliament, he won the respect of all who knew him for the courageous way in which he fought his illness, and our thoughts are with his family at this time.
	This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.

Bernard Jenkin: According to the World Bank, the present round of world trade talks would lift tens of millions of people out of abject and grinding poverty, yet the deadline for the conclusion of the talks this weekend will be missed. Does the Prime Minister accept that the main obstacle to a successful trade round is the punitive agricultural trade protection regime of the EU, and that Peter Mandelson's spokesman has made it clear that he will not agree to any deal that would cut agricultural subsidies in the EU by one cent? How does the Prime Minister square that with his obvious and sincere commitment to Africa and to tackling poverty?

Tony Blair: I accept entirely that the EU policy on agriculture is one major obstacle to the world trade talks succeeding. I would disagree, however, that it is the only one. Other obstacles must also be dealt withAmerican policy in relation to this matter, Japanese policy in relation to it and non-agricultural market access on behalf of the G20 countries. My view is that if those others are willing to put a bolder offer on the table, we in Europe should be prepared to revisit our policy in relation to that. We are trying to organise that at present. An important meeting is coming up shortly between the European Union and Latin American countries, and I know that President Lula of Brazil is absolutely committed to making this world trade round succeed. It is vital that it succeeds, not just for the poorest countriesalthough it is especially vital for thembut for the whole world. I will do everything that I can to make sure that Europe, America, Japan and the G20 countries all put more ambitious offers on the table.

Stephen Pound: For 16 years, I sat on Ealing council while our neighbourhoods went to hell in a handcart, and the response of the Conservative party was to introduce the Sheehy report, which was the biggest body blow to police morale in history. Will the Prime Minister acknowledge publicly the vital role of police and community support officers in finally making our neighbourhoods safer?

Tony Blair: Yes, I willI can say that confidently. The record numbers of police, the community support officers and the new powers, where they are used by local authorities, make a real difference to community safety. What my hon. Friend says is absolutely right.

David Cameron: I join the Prime Minister in his comments about Peter Law. On behalf of the official Opposition, let me say that our thoughts and prayers are with his family.
	The Government were told in July last year that there was a massive problem with foreign prisoners being released and not considered for deportation. The prisoners released on to Britain's streets included murderers, rapists and paedophiles. Does the Prime Minister accept that the measures taken after the Government were told about the problem were completely insufficient?

Tony Blair: First, let me say that I fully accept and regret that until recently the system for identifying and, where possible, deporting foreign nationals who have served sentences in United Kingdom jails has been seriously and fundamentally at fault.
	Let me answer the direct question that the right hon. Gentleman asked. Last July, it was proposed that there should be a substantial expansion of both the funding and the staff to look after this particular aspect of the work of the immigration and nationality directorate. That actually happened: almost 3 million extra was put into financing the system adequately, and the number of staff has been built up. As a result, although it has taken time to put the proper system in place, since 1 April all cases are now considered pre-release.
	There is another piece of information that I should give the House. It is, of course, a matter of deep regret, as the Home Secretary said, that since 1999we have the figures since 1999 because that is when records were first kept; the system has been in place for many decadesthere have been 1,023 cases. It is, however, important for people to understand that a third of those casescases in which there should have been consideration pre-release from prisonhave been considered subsequently, or are under consideration, and many of those people have been deported. I agree that that still means that the system was not working adequately, which is why the changes that I have just described were implemented.

David Cameron: But that, I am afraid, just is not good enough. We now know that even after Ministers were told about the problem in July, 288 prisoners were released without being considered for deportation. Why did the Home Secretary describe that last night as very, very few people?

Tony Blair: Again, it is important to emphasise that many of those 288more than 70, I thinkhave been considered. Indeed, some of them have been deported. It is, however, correct that all of them must now be considered. The point that I am making to the right hon. Gentleman is that from last year extra resources and extra staff[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. When the Prime Minister is asked a question, he must be allowed to answer. [Interruption.] Order. Mr. Forth, I am not looking for your opinion at this stage. I am saying that the Prime Minister must be allowed to answer.

Tony Blair: As I was saying, from last July procedures were implemented to increase the number of staff and the resourcing of the unit concerned. That has taken time to build up, but as I said a moment ago, many of those 288 casesmore than 70have already been considered or are being considered. Some of those people have already been deported. All those cases will be considered, and since 1 April the system has been working properly, so that for the first time ever, everyone who is identified pre-release has his or her case considered.

David Cameron: But the Prime Minister simply has not answered the question about what the Home Secretary said last night. Let us be clear about what he said on television. When asked whether anyone was released after he was told about it, the Home Secretary replied:
	I'm not prepared to say no one but . . . certainly very, very few people.
	Given that the actual number was 288, that was completely misleading.
	This Home Secretary has presided over systemic failure. He has failed to deal with this, and last night he misled people about the scale of the problem. Is it not clear that he cannot give the Home Office the leadership that it so badly needs?

Tony Blair: Not surprisingly, I do not agree with that. The Home Office has given the figure of 288. Indeed, the reason we can give figures is that there is now a proper case management system. As I have said, the reason we give the figures since 1999 is that that was the first time that any figures were kept. I would also point out that over the last two years there have been more than 3,000 deportations. Indeed, since last October there have been 800. But let me repeat again that since 1 April all cases have been considered pre-release. The 288 cases to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred will be considered; some have already been considered, and deportations have followed.

David Cameron: We learned this morning that the Home Secretary offered to resign. That contradicts what Downing street said yesterday. They were asked:
	Has Charles Clarke or anyone else offered to resign?,
	and replied, No.
	That is the sort of thing that we have come routinely to expect from this Government. Can the Prime Minister answer this? When the Home Secretary offered to resign, did the Prime Minister know that, even after the Government were told about systemic failure, 288 prisoners were released without being considered for deportation?

Tony Blair: I do not accept that the Home Secretary did not act on this matter. He did act, for the very reasons that I have given, and in the way that I just described. The fact is that there has been action as a result of people realising that there were cases that should have been considered pre-release which were only considered post-release. There is now a system in place, however, for the first time since these procedures began, that will allow us to make sure that all cases are considered pre-release and that deportations follow, where appropriate. I may point out that that is literally the first time for decades that such a system has been in place.

David Cameron: I asked a simple question: can the Prime Minister tell us whether he knew, or not?

Tony Blair: I did not know the details of the figures that the Home Secretary gave until today. However, it is as a result of the Home Office having put out the figures that we actually know them. It is therefore quite wrong to suggest that these figures were somehow concealed by the Home Secretary, and as I have already said to the right hon. Gentleman, it is not correct that the 288 cases will not be considered. They will be considered, and the Home Secretary will give details later of how quickly that can be done.

David Cameron: Let us be absolutely clear about what we have just heard. The Prime Minister backs incompetent Ministers, even when he does not know the facts. That is what we have discovered. When are this Government going to start backing and protecting the public, instead of protecting their own backs? Let us be clear about what has happened: 1,000 prisoners have been released on to our streets, when they should have been considered for deportation; the Prime Minister does not know where they are, or how many crimes they have committed since they were released. Is this not part of a wider story: a Government who said that they would be tough on crime releasing dangerous prisoners; a Government who told us that there were 24 hours to save the NHS sacking nurses? When a Prime Minister cannot even deport dangerous foreign criminals in our jails, are the public not entitled to say, Enough is enough?

Tony Blair: First, I did give the right hon. Gentleman the facts on the 1,023 prisoners, and I indicated that over a third of them have already had their cases considered, or are in the course of being considered. As for the national health service, I think that people know very well, when they compare[Interruption.] Well, it was the right hon. Gentleman who raised the issue of the national health service. I am well aware of the reason why Opposition Members do not want the answer.

Russell Brown: Two weeks ago, the Hunter Rubber company in my constituency went into administration, resulting in the immediate loss of some 48 jobs. On moving in, the administrators seized everything, including the employees' holiday fund, later indicating that, despite that mistake, they could not refund the money. Thankfully, the Department of Trade and Industry's insolvency unit will rectify the administrators' mistake. However, does the Prime Minister not agree that mistakes made by administrators and the like should be rectified by them, and not left at the mercy of the public purse?

Tony Blair: I agree with my hon. Friend entirely. I am aware of the situation in his constituency and I am only sorry that his constituents have been put through this misery.

Menzies Campbell: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, may I associate myself with the expressions of sympathy that the Prime Minister gave to the family and friends of Peter Law?
	Does the Prime Minister feel any sense of embarrassment in presiding over such incompetence as was revealed yesterday, and who will take responsibility for it?

Tony Blair: As I explained to the Leader of the Opposition, there has been systemic failurethat is entirely acceptedover a very long period. However, it is also the case that it is only because there have been proper records since 1999 that we know of these numbers of people. There is also now a proper system in place, which is why, I repeat, from 1 April, for the first time ever in the administration of this system, all cases are considered pre-release.

Menzies Campbell: Does the Prime Minister understand that if heads are to roll, and those heads are those of civil servants, the public will feel that a lot less than political responsibility has been demonstrated by this Government? May I remind him of these facts? The Government had these matters first drawn to their attention in 2002. Some 288 people have been released since last August. This morning, at Holme House prison in Stockton-on-Tees, a Nigerian prisoner eligible for deportation was seen to walk free into the community. How can the Home Secretary remain in office? How can the Prime Minister not ask for his resignation?

Tony Blair: For the reason that I gave earlier, which is that the changes that have now been put in place allow us, for the first time, to ensure that the system operates in the way that it always should. Let me just point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman yet again that all of the 288 cases will be considered. Some of them have already been considered and, incidentally, it is as a result of the action taken by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary last yearthe very time the right hon. and learned Gentleman talks aboutincluding the additional money and additional staff, that we now have in place for the first time that robust system.

Robert Wareing: When the Prime Minister hears about British soldiers losing their lives in Iraq, he usuallyin fact, always, and correctlymakes a statement from the Dispatch Box expressing sympathy. Today, in Committee Room 16 at 12.30 there will be members of the families of those who have lost their lives in Iraq. Will the Prime Minister spare five or 10 minutes to meet them?

Tony Blair: For the reasons that I have given on many occasions, I yield to nobody in my support and admiration for the work that the soldiers do in Iraq. It is also important, however, from my perspective and also from the perspective of those who are serving out in Iraq, that they know that we are fully behind the work that they are doing there. They are there with a United Nations resolution and the full support of the Iraqi Government. I believe that at this moment it is important that they know that they are doing a job that is right and worth while, and is absolutely necessary for this country's security.

David Amess: What is the rationale behind the decision to remove the British embassy from the Holy See for the first time since the signing of the Lateran treaty, to close the ambassador's residence and then to invite the Pope to visit Britain next year? Is it the Government's intention to showcase the Pope's visit next year by inviting my right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) to take tea with him?

Tony Blair: First, I should say that we do have an ambassador and a residence there and it is important that we keep them, but the Foreign Officelike many organisationshas to undergo changes, including the exact location of its embassies or residences. That is for perfectly understandable reasons of cost, but we have an excellent ambassador to the Vatican, who is doing an excellent job.

Eric Joyce: All right hon. and hon. Members recognise the size of the challenge of restoring the Northern Ireland Assembly. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the latest report by the Independent Monitoring Commission provides the beginning of a foundation for a successful outcome?

Tony Blair: I hope very much that it does, because the Independent Monitoring Commission's report today is important. It is important because it reports both on paramilitary and on criminal activity. It is our hope that if this situation continues, we will have sufficient confidence and trust on all sides of the community in Northern Ireland to get the devolved institutions back up and running again. That is of vital importance to the future and, as my hon. Friend rightly implies, if we look back over the past 10 years, we see that Northern Ireland has come a very long way. It would be tremendous for the people of Northern Ireland and for the whole of the United Kingdom if that could be seen through to a successful conclusion.

Adrian Sanders: It is estimated that there are around 1 million undiagnosed diabetics in the United Kingdom. One of the main barriers to them seeking treatment is their fear that diagnosis would lead to a lifetime of injections. That is why it was so disappointing that the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence last week ruled out making available the alternative system of inhaled insulin. The NICE report did not consider that group of diabetics who are put off seeking medical treatment to control their condition, but concentrated only on the efficacy and cost of existing diabetics being moved to a different regime. Will the Prime Minister look again at that group of people, who will cost the health service an enormous amount of money in the long term if they do not get the appropriate treatment quickly? The alternative system could be the key.

Tony Blair: I am very prepared to pass on the hon. Gentleman's remarks to NICE, but it is important that that body ends up making the clinical decisions. I am not qualified to do that, and neither is he. The way that NICE operates has generally commanded a great deal of respect. However, the treatment of diabetes on the NHS is undergoing considerable change, particularly to give people who suffer from diabetes greater power and control over their treatment. Decisions about how that is done, and about the safest way to do it, must be left to those who are experts in the field.

Joan Humble: Is the Prime Minister aware that the TVR car company has announced that it will leave its Blackpool base in six months, and that that announcement has caused real distress to my constituents? Will he therefore, as a matter of urgency, ask specialist advisers from the DTI to liaise with Blackpool council and offer advice and support to TVR so that it can look at realistic options to remain in Blackpool? If the company makes the sad decision to relocate some or all of its operations, will he ensure that support and advice are given to the members of its skilled work force so that they can find suitable alternative employment?

Tony Blair: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance, and I am obviously sorry for those of her constituents who face the prospect of redundancy. She will know that there is now a well tried and tested procedure for dealing with situations where manufacturing or other redundancies arise as a result of changes in the market. We will make sure that the full infrastructure of support from Jobcentre Plus and the DTI is put in place to try to help her constituents. It is fortunate that our very strong economy and the number of jobs available in it mean that we have been able to provide extra jobs when similar redundancies have occurred. In addition, I assure my hon. Friend that we would be happy also to provide the necessary re-skilling and retraining for her constituents.

Willie Rennie: Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating Dunfermline's Lauder college on its record in respect of employment and enterprise? Over the past 18 years, it has successfully helped thousands of people find work in Fife. Will he also investigate the decision by Jobcentre Plus not to renew three new deal contracts with the college? That decision has been criticised by the local community, businesses and hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Tony Blair: I am very happy to congratulate the college on the work that it does. Obviously, I am not aware of the individual circumstances of the decisions taken by Jobcentre Plus, but I shall be happy to look into the matter, and send the hon. Gentleman a reply on the subject.

Gisela Stuart: My constituents are worried when they read in the newspapers about NHS staff cuts, even though the first new hospital for 70 years has been built in Birmingham, at a cost of 600 million. Will the Prime Minister give me an assurance that the NHS will continue to have well trained and motivated staff, so that we can continue to reform the service? We must not return to the real crisis, which happened when the Tories tried to dismantle the NHS. [Interruption.]

Tony Blair: Opposition Members can shout, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Some 250,000 or more new staff have joined the NHS in the past few yearsincluding, incidentally, 85,000 nurses. She isright to say that the Birmingham hospital redevelopment will cost almost 700 million. Indeed, most of the hospital stock that existed under the previous Government and when this party came to office was built before the NHS was created. That has changed as a result of the largest-ever hospital building programme. For all the difficulties and challenges facing the NHS, we should never forget how much better it is under this Labour Government.

David Evennett: Is the Prime Minister aware that recorded crime in my borough of Bexley rose by 5.4 per cent. last year? People in my constituency believe that the Government and the local Labour council have failed on crime and antisocial behaviour and that they are completely out of touch. Will he start listening, get real and get some results?

Tony Blair: We have actually had a lot of results, both in Bexley and elsewhere, where as a result of the additional investment of this Government in the Metropolitan police area, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there are thousands more police officers; there are community support officers; and recorded crime has actually gone down, not up. In addition, there is more investment in education, there is more investment in health care and there is more investment in pensionersa lot more than under the Government whom he used to support.

Martin Linton: Would my right hon. Friend perhaps prefer to visit my constituency of Battersea, only a mile from the House of Commons, where the Government and the Mayor have set up safer neighbourhood teams in every ward, helping to cut crime in the borough of Wandsworth by 5 per cent. in the last year? They have set up these teams a year ahead of target, even though the Conservative party voted against the budget at City hall.

Tony Blair: Of course, Opposition parties did vote against the budget that has allowed us to roll out safe neighbourhood policing in London, so that people will have neighbourhood policing teams which by the end of the year will comprise, in each area, a police sergeant, two police officers and three community support officers. So, for the first time in London for years, there will be proper beat patrols back on the street, which is what people have wanted for ages. This Government and the Mayor and local authorities have provided it, and the Opposition parties voted against money for it.

Peter Luff: Many jobs in my constituency, at Evesham Technology, depend on a highly successful Government scheme, the home computing initiative. Why, without warning, and only days after the Department of Trade and Industry offered it to its own staff, has the Chancellor of the Exchequer abolished it?

Tony Blair: There are, however, other things that we are putting in place to help people with improving access to technology. For example, there are now going to be some 6,000 centres across the UK which will allow people to access computer technology at very low expense. But we have to ensure that in any such initiative we obviously balance the revenue that is coming in with the support that is being given.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Two of my constituents, Jeanette Macleod and Margaret Prior, have both received Respect awards for taking a stand against antisocial behaviour. Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating them, and also in assuring them and other concerned residents in my constituency that this Government will continue to back and support them with tough measures against antisocial behaviour?

Tony Blair: We certainly will, and I can assure my hon. Friend that in places up and down this country we are seeing the results of the extra resource and the numbers of police and community support officers, and of the additional powers to tackle antisocial behaviourthings like closing down homes that are used for drug dealing, ensuring that vandalism and so on can be dealt with by on-the-spot fines, and ensuring that we can put ASBOs on those people who are out of control and not behaving in a respectful and proper way within their community. And each and every one of those measures has been opposed by the Liberal Democrats and many have been opposed by the Conservatives.

Julia Goldsworthy: With the only acute hospital in Cornwall closing wards and axeing hundreds of jobs, does the Prime Minister still really believe that this has been the best year ever for the NHS in Cornwall?

Tony Blair: I say to the hon. Lady, as I say to all people who criticise the NHS and the changes that it is going through, simply compare what has happened across the NHS and inject some balance into this debate. The numbers of nurses and doctors are up. The waiting times and waiting lists are down. We have radically improved services for some areas that were, a few years ago, among the main areas of concern, such as heart disease and cancer. Going to the accident and emergency department today is a quite different experience from a few years ago.
	We will continue to make the changes necessary to deliver those reforms. There is a massive resource going in. But the health service cannot always stay as it is. When we examine some of the so-called job losses that are happening, we see that, yes, some will involve genuine redundancies, but I say so-called for this reason: others do not. They involve redeploying staff to other duties, and in any system that employs more than a million people it is absurd to say that everyone carries on doing the same thing in the same way. The programme of investment and reform is right. It is delivering, it will deliver and we shall keep to it.

Michael Jabez Foster: My right hon. Friend will be pleased to know that there are 100 extra nurses in our local hospitals in the Hastings area. This year alone, we have 15 extra community nurses and a primary care trust that is in balance and delivering services. But[Hon. Members: Ah.] The but is this: my strategic health authority suggests abolishing my local PCT that has delivered so much. Will my right hon. Friend intervene, look at the issue and do something about it?

Tony Blair: We will certainly look carefully at what my hon. Friend says about his local PCT. I understand that there are differing views about the amalgamation and merger of PCTs, but he is absolutely right to point out the tremendous improvement in his area and in constituencies up and down the country. That is not just the result of record amounts of investmentall of which the Conservatives voted againstbut also of change and reform, and sometimes that change and reform will mean that people are redeployed and that tough decisions are taken to sort out financial deficits, but that is precisely why we are able to say that by the end of 2008 there will be a maximum 18-week wait on an out and in-patient list combined. That would revolutionise the NHS and end for ever the concept of waiting. It is something we are determined to deliver and we will take the tough decisions necessary to do so.

John Penrose: Weston-super-Mare hospital is one of the most efficient in the country, with reference costs roughly 15 per cent. below the Government's targets over the past two years, yet yesterday it had to announce cuts of 11 million and, according to Unison, the loss of up to 60 front-line nursing posts. Given that the Department of Health has so far refused to implement payment by results, which would wipe out that deficit in a year, and has also refused to act on the problem of local primary care trust funding being 11 million below the Government's own target capitation figures, does the Prime Minister agree that this is not a problem created by local mismanagement but a crisis created by decisions made at Westminster? Will he intervene personally?

Tony Blair: I am happy to look into the hon. Gentleman's point about how payment by results applies in his PCT, but when people talk about cuts in NHS finances, I have to say again that there is, on any basis, a huge increase in national health service financing for his area. On waiting times, for example[Interruption.] Well that is where the money has gone, too. In 1997, in the strategic health authority covering the hon. Gentleman's constituency, the number of people waiting more than six months for an operation was almost 12,000; today it is three. That may be three too many but it is a darn sight better than 12,000. I agree that when we introduce new measures of financial accountability there will difficulties and sometimes posts will not be filled or will be made redundant, but if at the end of the process we have a national health service that is fit for purpose in the early 21st century, where waiting lists come down even further and we get rid of the concept of waiting in the NHS, that change will help his constituents. I cannot promise him that there will not be difficulty or change in his area or in any other, but I can say that it is fully worth it to make sure that every pound of taxpayers' money going into the national health service is most effectively used.

Foreign Nationals (Deportation and Removal)

Charles Clarke: rose

Hon. Members: Resign!

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House wanted a statement yesterday. The statement is here, and we must listen to the Home Secretary.

Charles Clarke: With permission, I would like to make a statement on deportation and removal of foreign nationals. As I said in my written statement to the House yesterday, to the best of my knowledge, between February 1999 and March 2006 1,023 foreign national criminals, who should have been considered for deportation or removal, completed their prison sentences and were released without the appropriate consideration of deportation or removal action. This failure in the systems for dealing with foreign national prisoners is deeply regrettable and my immediate priority is to set that right.
	The arrangements for identifying foreign national prisoners and considering their removal from the UK have not kept pace with the significant rise in the foreign national prisoner population over recent years. While there has been no fundamental change in our policy to consider serious offenders for deportation before release in recent years, it is clear that the increasing number of cases being referred for consideration led to the process falling down.
	In recent months we have been making significant improvements to the system for identifying, referring and caseworking foreign national prisoners. That includes significant increases in resources for caseworking, commencing deportation proceedings at the earliest possible point prior to release and much closer working between the agencies involved.
	Of the 1,023 foreign nationals in total, consideration of the case for deportation has started in 355 cases, of which 107 have been completed and 20 have been deported. Of the 288 that should have been considered since August 2005, 83 have been started, 53 completed and 14 deported. I can confirm that consideration of the most serious cases has, of course, commenced and I will report further on progress by the end of this week.
	It may help to put the matter in context if I say that in the two calendar years 2004 and 2005, around 3,000 foreign national prisoners were deported. I am confident that we can build on this performance and I am considering how we might tighten our processes even further[Interruption.]for example, through policy and sentencing options and further practical measures.
	My aim is to ensure that the foreign national prisoner population is managed effectively and proactively, ensuring that the number of people held in prisons under immigration powers is kept to the absolute minimum, that we have the right sentencing powers and identification of referral and caseworking capacity so that we are in a position to effect removal at the earliest point of release. That is my commitment, and I will report regularly to the House on progress.

David Davis: I have to say to the House that I respond to the Home Secretary's statement with regret, which is not something that I have said about all Home Office Ministers. I have known the right hon. Gentleman for 30 years, and despite our differences, I have always had a broad degree of respect for him. However, as the right hon. Gentleman has reminded us over the last few days, it is the first duty of Government to protect the publicand I am afraid that events of the last few days have demonstrated a culpable failure to protect public safety[Interruption.] If the Government Chief Whip wishes to intervene, I am afraid that under the rules of the House, I am not allowed to let her do so; I will gladly do so on another occasion.
	The Home Secretary's statement reveals a disturbing neglect of public safety at the heart of Government. Following on from his statement last week on murders committed by offenders on probation, this is yet another example of his Department's failure and incompetence. There is no excuse for the Home Secretary not knowing about it. Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons report of 200203 highlighted
	an institutional blind spot for foreign nationals as a whole,
	while the following year's report stated baldly:
	In spite of the growing number of foreign national prisoners, there is still no national strategy, and too few prisons have their own local foreign national policies.
	The National Audit Office reported on the matter last July, and in September my shadow prisons Minister asked how many foreign nationals were in prison awaiting deportation. She was told that the information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
	In October, when the Public Accounts Committee asked how many failed asylum seekers had been released from prison, the Home Office could not answer. When we asked again, as late as last November, the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality claimed, with astonishing complacency that the Government were ensuring
	that foreign national prisoners liable to deportation are removed promptly.[Official Report, 21 November 2005; Vol. 439, c. 1751W.]
	Now, after that series of warnings, the Home Secretary is still unable to give us the definitive figures. He says that to the best of his knowledge, 1,023 foreign-born prisoners who should have been considered for deportation have been released into the community, putting the public at risk. Is he even able to tell the House how many of those released criminals have committed further offences? We would expect half of those people to have reoffended. How many further serious crimes have been perpetrated by the people whom the Home Secretary has put back on our streets?
	When asked where the murderers, rapists, kidnappers and drug dealers were today, the Home Secretary said that he did not know, despite the fact that many, if not all, of those categories should have be subject to supervision, even if they had been British prisoners. But he presumably does know how many have been released, and he does know who has been deported. So if the Home Secretary does not know where they are, he must tell the House this: how many foreign convicted killers, how many convicted paedophiles, how many convicted rapists and how many convicted drug dealers are at large today, as result of his policy failure?
	Last night on Newsnight, when asked if anyone was released in the period after we knew about this problem, the Home Secretary said, Very, very few, but a statement broadcast after the 10 o'clock news announced that 288 more foreign criminals were released after the Home Secretary explicitly knew that there was a problem: 288 releases over eight months is actually a faster rate than 700 over six years. The rate of release of those criminals into the community was greater after July, when he found out, than it was before July. Does the Home Secretary really believe that almost 300 foreign convicted criminals released into our communities is Very, very few? I am afraid that I must tell him that I cannot think of a starker demonstration of a Minister not in charge of his Department.
	The Home Secretary is a proud man, and he will be mortally embarrassed by the failure that we have heard about today, so I am not surprised that he offered his resignation to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said that he should not go. At 4 pm I was saying that he should not go. On the 6 o'clock news I was saying that he should not go. On the 10 o'clock news I was saying that he should not go. But like the Prime Minister at the time of his earlier admission, we did not know all the facts yesterday. The information released overnight is that 288 criminals were released after the Government knew about the problem. I am sorry to say that because of this culpable failure to protect the safety of the public, the Home Secretary's position is now untenable.

Charles Clarke: I think that there are three points that I want to make. [Hon. Members: Resign!] I am terribly   sorry to disappoint Opposition Members [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Charles Clarke: First, it is absolutely untrue that the Government neglect public safety. Public safety is rightly the first priority of any Government. It is truethis is the second pointthat there have been the failures that I set out in the statement to the House today, including failures in the relationship between the Prison Service and the immigration and nationality directorate that have led to the failures of information to which the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) referred and for which I apologised to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee over the phone yesterday morning, before writing him the letter in which I set that out. It was a failure. I have acknowledged that it is failure, and it must be got right.

Brian Binley: Apologise!

Charles Clarke: I do apologise; I have apologised; and I continue to do so. It is not right that this should be the state of affairs, but I will produce the information, as I said in my statement, in the form that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden requests, when I have it in every respectI will not do it partially.
	The third point that I want to make in response to what the right hon. Gentleman said is that I think that the first duty of everyone in public life, certainly everyone in government, is to take responsibility to improve the situation and deal with things in the proper way. [Hon. Members: Take responsibility!] I think that my responsibility is to take that responsibility and to put things right, and that is what I intend to do.

Nicholas Clegg: Yesterday, No. 10 was reported as saying that it is
	unreasonable to expect Ministers to know what is going on in every nook and cranny in their Departments.
	Does the Home Secretary really think that the release without deportation of more than 1,000 foreign prisoners can be reasonably described as a nook or a cranny in the work of the Home Office? The Prime Minister also said that the facts have come to light only recently, and that a new system is in place to deal with the issue. However, in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), a Home Office Minister told us in January 2004:
	HM prisons are instructed to notify the Immigration and Nationality Directorate . . . of all foreign nationals sentenced to a term of imprisonment, together with their release dates once calculated.
	IND then considers whether a person should be deported or removed and it is our aim . . . to remove such persons in line with their release from custody.[Official Report, 27 January 2004; Vol. 417, c. 267W.]
	If that was the case in January 2004, how can it now be plausibly claimed that neither the Home Secretary and his Department nor the Prime Minister knew that there was a system in place already to deal with the issue, which was abjectly failing in its primary responsibility to protect the safety of the public?
	Will the Home Secretary also tell us whether he knows the whereabouts of the three murderers and nine rapists who have been released and not deportedwho should, in the normal course of events, have provided details of their whereabouts to the police already? If he does not know their whereabouts, will he tell us when he thinks that he will have that information? Does he know what offences have been committed by those who have been released? If not, when will he know?
	Finally, the Home Secretary at least displays some understanding that someone needs to take some political responsibility for this momentous example of incompetence. Frankly, the same cannot be said for his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), or the Minister responsible for immigration, who both, within hours of this matter coming to light yesterday, said that the heads of officials might need to roll. Reacting to the news by immediately hoping to shift the blame to officials and underlings who do not have the ability to defend themselves in public smacks of the worst kind of mean-spirited buck passing.

Charles Clarke: I think that there are two points here. First, on the various aspects of information that the hon. Gentleman asked me to provide, I simply refer him to what I said in the statement and in answer to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg) is entitled to ask those questions, and I will give the answers, but I will do so in the time scale that I set out.
	Secondly, on the hon. Gentleman's concluding point about responsibility for this matter, I believe that he is right to say that it is entirely a matter for Ministers to take responsibility, and in particular, for me to take responsibility, and not to seek to shelter behind officials in any regard. It is true to say that there is a systemic issue, as I have indicated throughout, which needs to be addressed and which is my responsibility. He is quite right to say that. However, I interpret thatI am not sure that he doesas meaning that it is my responsibility to get the systems working correctly to protect us in the most effective way. That is what I intend to do.

Keith Vaz: I welcome the information that the Home Secretary has given this morning, but may I remind him that on 5 October last year, I wrote to him about a constituent, James Bishop, who was killed by a foreign national who was removed from the country without standing a full trial? On 28 October, from the Dispatch Box, I was given assurances that if there were lessons to be learned about that removal, they would be learned. Does he not agree that at the root of the problem is the co-ordination between three departmentsthe Prison Service, the IND and the Courts Service? I am glad that he is not resigning and is going to remain as Home Secretary, because the system has to be put right to ensure that people who kill people in this country stand trial before removal, and that those who have been convicted with a recommendation for deportation are removed and not allowed to remain.

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I completely agree with him about the extent of the systemic issues to which he referred. He is also right to say that those failures lead to personal tragedies of the most appalling kindof the kind that he has raised previously. That is why I take so seriously the responsibility for getting the systems working in the right way.

Richard Bacon: I shall give the Home Secretary credit for one thing: at least he has not tried to claim that yesterday was the best day ever for the Home Office. He has sought to accept responsibility for this matter, and to that extent, I credit him. None the less, people are simply at a loss to understand how this could have happened. They want to know why, every time a prisoner who is a foreign national is about to be released from prison, someone does not ask, Should they now be deported? The only explanation that people can come up with is that the rights of foreign criminals are more important and given higher priority than the right of the public in this country to be protected. Those are the facts. Will the Home Secretary at least tell us that an order has now gone out to prison governors that no foreign nationals who are currently in prison are to be released without it first being established whether they should be deportedand if not, why not?

Charles Clarke: I begin by paying tribute to my parliamentary neighbour, the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon), for the way in which he has conducted himself on the Public Accounts Committee. As I said to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee yesterday, although there are many criticisms to be made of the way in which the Home Office has operated in this respect, the fact that the PAC has addressed the issues as it has, and has taken them up, is a credit to the system and I pay credit to him personally for it.
	I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman on his point of substance. It is not my view, or that of anyone in the Home Office, that the rights of criminals, especially foreign national criminals, are more important than the rights of citizens. However, it is the case, as his Committee has been trying to expose, that inefficiencies and ineffectiveness exist in the way in which we have carried out our responsibilities. I am sure that his Committee will continue to take up that issue, and we   will, of course, continue to try to improve what we do.

John Spellar: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the way in which he has commendably come to the House and accepted responsibility. Does he accept that the Home Office is a seriously dysfunctional organisation that has frustrated the attempts of Home Secretaries of both parties to deal with crime and illegal migration? Will he not only follow the advice of his predecessor to ensure that heads will roll, but make sure that there is a shake-up from top to bottom in the Home Office, so that this inefficient organisation is on the side of the community, not the criminals?

Charles Clarke: I agree completely with my right hon. Friend and his implicit criticism. That is why I have, as Home Secretary, tried to carry out the kind of reform that he describes. In saying that, I want to point out that this issue is about not the integrity or commitment of people who work for the Home Office, but how to organise ourselves in the most effective way. The issue has highlighted both that and the need for the kind of reforms that my right hon. Friend highlights.

Michael Howard: Last night the Home Secretary told Jon Snow that he would not resign unless it could be shown that what had happened was the result of a personal failure on his part. I agree with him that that is the right approach. A few hours later, he told Jeremy Paxman that what had happened was the result of a shocking failure on his part, among others. Given those two answers, how can he stay in his job?

Charles Clarke: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is probably the only Member of the House from whom I would not accept that stricture. As Home Secretary he had a long record of evading responsibility, as the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) pointed out so powerfully at the time. For example, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's responsibilities on category A escapes stand in front of us. I agree with him that it is right for people to bear responsibilityand I dobut my responsibility is to create the kind of Home Office that means that such a situation cannot recur. In so doing, I am still, eight years on, dealing with the legacy for which he was responsible.

Lynne Jones: On 10 April I wrote to the immigration and nationality directorate about the case of Paul Omorui, a Nigerian who entered the country illegally from Spain using false documents, got employment with Royal Mail, again using false documentation, and stole financial and identity documentation. As I have not yet received a reply to my inquiry, will the Home Secretary assure me that the man will be deported, as recommended by the judge who sentenced him to 15 months' imprisonment? Will the Home Secretary also give assurances that in future, instead of constant change brought about by a never-ending round of criminal justice and immigration and asylum legislation, the Government will concentrate on developing effective and efficient administration systems and good decision making in the Home Office?

Charles Clarke: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that I will look immediately into the case and answer her directly.

Peter Robinson: I share with many on the Opposition side of the House concern about the serious failing of the Home Secretary and the Home Office. Even if the Home Secretary does not know the precise addresses of all those whom he is considering for deportation, can he indicate whether there are any who are likely to be residing in Northern Ireland, and the offences for which they might have been formerly convicted?

Charles Clarke: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the full information that he requests. I understand that there are fewer than 50 foreign nationals in prisons in Northern Ireland, for a range of offences, but I will write to him with the information that he wants.

Mark Todd: Does the Home Secretary agree that there is substantial evidence of overload, in political, administrative and legislative terms, in his Department and that that has put substantial burdens on him and his fellow Ministers? Does he agree that there is a requirement for a review of the political and management resources devoted to the tasks that are given to him?

Charles Clarke: I agree with quite a lot of that. Since I have been Home Secretary I have tried to organise the Home Office into three essential pillarsthe first dealing with policing and counter-terrorism, the second dealing with offender management and the issues about which we are talking, and the third dealing with immigration, asylum and identityand to have a reform programme in each to try to ensure that we can achieve the efficiency that we need. That has to be taken forward in a large variety of ways, as is happening. I also agree with my hon. Friend about the substantial volume of legislation that we have had in this Session. Perhaps I can give him the assurance that I have given others that I am determined to have a good deal less legislation in the rest of the Parliament. I see that the Government Whip who deals with such matters is looking extremely happy as I make that statement.

John Redwood: Presumably the released offenders are now either on benefit or in employment paying tax, so how can the Government have lost contact with them? I am sure that if one of my law-abiding constituents had committed a speeding offence, the Government would soon find his address and send him the relevant prosecution papers. Why cannot the Home Secretary use the many records that the Government have to find those people before it is too late?

Charles Clarke: As I said, we are proceeding on that. I have given figures on where we are, and I said that I would report further. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that if an identity card system had been in place, it would have been easier to move more quickly[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It will not do if hon. Members are shouting across the Chamber. I once again remind the House that it wanted the statement, and that hon. Members want to question the Home Secretary.

Lindsay Hoyle: Obviously this issue is serious, and no one can shy away from it. May I say to my right hon. Friend that people expect action, and to know that no more will be released? What special advice has he given to the Prison Service and chief constables to get those dangerous people back off the streets, into prison and deportedwhenever that may be? We need to know that the matter is being taken seriously, and the public expect officials in the civil service to resign[Hon. Members: Ministers!] The public also expect elected Members to consider their position when such serious things have happened, so I must pass that advice to my right hon. Friend.

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend is quite right, in that I am sure that his constituents and everyone want the situation to be addressed effectively and quickly. I said in my statement that I would report further on progress regarding the most dangerous individuals concerned by the end of the week. As for the consideration of positions, I have considered my positionand I have decided that my position must be to put the situation straight, which is what I am going to do.

Edward Leigh: I thank the Home Secretary for phoning me yesterday morning. I do not want to get involved in the politics of this, but serious questions must be asked. As the alarm bells started ringing at the Home Office last summer, why was it that the permanent secretary was unable to give anything like full details to the Public Accounts Committee when we asked him direct questions in October? Why was it that after repeated prodding, no proper note was produced, despite the fact that a note with the information was promised by the time our report was published on 13 March? Why did it take until yesterday for the Home Secretary to write to me with the details? Was that because this afternoon we are interviewing the new permanent secretary about the unprecedented failure of the Department to present any accounts at all to the Comptroller and Auditor General? What is going on in the Department? Is it ungovernable, in meltdown and out of control, or was there an attempt by the then permanent secretary to withhold information from the Public Accounts Committee, which would surely be unthinkable and unprecedented?

Charles Clarke: I repeat to the hon. Gentleman what I said to his colleague on the Committee: the PAC has conducted itself entirely correctly. I give him an absolute assurance that there was no attempt by the former permanent secretary, who I think will be in front of the Committee this afternoon, to withhold information from the Committee. The Committee's inquiry revealed the inadequacy of our procedures, even to the extent of giving the proper details and information to the Committee that should have been given. As a result of that and the continued pressing by the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) on those points, we went back through every aspect, and we came to appreciate that we had given the Committee the wrong information for the period about which it asked. I decided not only that we should give accurate information on that period but that we should give full information for the whole period so that all our information was in the public arena. That is why we made the decision. We acted as speedily as possible, but I certainly cannot hide from the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), after his Committee's careful consideration of those matters, the fact that there was a serious systemic failure in our ability properly to understand what was happening, as the Committee discovered. He deserves credit for that clarification, but I repeat my assurance that, first, we will work with his Committee if necessary to get it rightand we shall certainly do so in any caseand, secondly, that there was no attempt on the part of anyone, including the former permanent secretary, to mislead the Committee with the information that was given.

Sally Keeble: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement on a matter that is of great concern to my constituents, who want reassurance. Having listened to the exchanges, it appears that there is problem with delays in decision-making by IND on those cases. My constituents want to know why it takes a certain length of time to decide to deport someone who has committed a desperately serious crime. What will my right hon. Friend do to speed up decision making so that decisions are made quickly and the processes can be cut down if necessary to prevent delays in deporting serious criminals?

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend has put her finger on the problem. It is important to make those decisions while people are still serving their sentence so that they can be executed before they leave prison. [Interruption.] I do not mean executed literallythe decisions should be executed before those people leave prison. That is precisely the policy that we have now put in place, and we are carrying it out as energetically and effectively as possible. What is required, as my hon. Friend implied, is a significant improvement in our procedures, particularly the relationship between the Prison Service and the IND to ensure that they can both identify and consider those questions far more rapidly. As I said in my statement, we are considering whether sentencing issues and even legal changes could assist us, but my hon. Friend has put her finger on the right point.

Pete Wishart: May I tell the Secretary of State that the events of the past 24 hours have been met with huge concern in Scotland, so can he tell me how many of those released foreign nationals are resident there? He will know that criminal justice in the Scottish Prison Service is devolved to the Scottish Executive, so when did he first alert Scottish Ministers and the Scottish prison system to those difficulties?

Charles Clarke: I do not have information about Scotland to hand but, as I told the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), I will write to the hon. Gentleman with that information as soon as possible.

Stephen Pound: No one would deny that this is a damnably serious business. I pay tribute to Members such as the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) who decided not to lower themselves by playing party politics with the issue. May I tell my right hon. Friend that the episode has taught me two things? First, this is not the time for the Home Secretary to leave his position, as he has to see this through. Secondly, does he not agree that the case for identity cards has now been made?

Charles Clarke: As it happens, my hon. Friend will be shocked to hear that I agree with him on his second point. He is quite right, and I am confident that wisdom will spread across the House on those matters. As for his first point, I am extremely grateful for his support. Yes, I believe that I should sort this out, and that is what I am going to do.

Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman referred to systemic failure. Does he accept that that extends to Ministers, and will he confirm that 288 prisoners were released after he and his colleagues became aware of the problem? Will he confirm that 160 were released, notwithstanding an express judicial recommendation that they should be deported? Given all of that, what meaning should we attach to the phrase, personal responsibility, as applied to Ministers, if it excludes the resignation of those responsible?

Charles Clarke: I think that I have dealt with every single one of those points, so I will not repeat myself.

David Howarth: Coming back to the point about the amount of legislation, is that not one of the most galling aspects of the whole business? The Home Secretary has brought to the House criminal law Bill after criminal law Bill, yet he has failed to use his existing powers. Is that not the reason why he has to go, as he has been caught playing gesture politics while failing to be effective in the most basic way possible?

Charles Clarke: No.

Anne Snelgrove: My right hon. Friend may be aware that my office experienced some difficulties last year with the immigration and nationality directorate. After some robust conversations with the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality, I am glad that the IND has sorted out many of those problems, and spent a great deal of time with my office to resolve cases that went back several years. That experience demonstrates that there is capacity in the IND to sort out such problems, but there is a problem with communication and capacity across the whole service. Can my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents and me that he and the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality will keep working to make sure that communications are better?

Charles Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. One of my regrets is that this whole business obscures the fact that the IND has made substantial improvements in recent years by, for example, achieving the tipping point. The improvements to which she referred are the result of a deliberate effort to change the relationship between the IND, Members of Parliament and others. I do not wish to hide the failure that has taken place, particularly the failure in communication to which she rightly referred. However, I hope that fair-minded Members will take account of the genuine progress by IND in various ways in recent years.

Eric Forth: How many of those criminals had a previous criminal record, either here or in their own country?

Charles Clarke: I am sorry, but I must give the right hon. Gentleman the same answer that I gave his right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis). I will publish all the information when I am in a position to do so.

Mike Gapes: The statement referred to the introduction of a new system in 1999. Can the Home Secretary confirm that a major problem with the immigration and nationality directorate for many yearsand it is one that still frustrates those of us who have to deal with it on a daily basis on behalf of our constituentsstems from the fact that a considerable backlog of cases was inherited from the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and others, which meant that its focus was not always where it should have been.

Charles Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is right. As a matter of practical politics, I generally do not think that it is very helpful to refer to things that happened more than eight or nine years ago, as people can legitimately say that we have been in government since 1997. However, the one person I would exclude from that is the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), as he bore direct responsibility for the shambolic system that we inherited.

John Hayes: The House and the nation are entitled to know how severe the crisis would have to be before the Home Secretary's conscience was pricked and he left his job, if not with credit, then at least without a stain on his character. In how many cases did a judge recommend at the time of sentencing that the offender be deported? What are the legal implications of the Home Secretary and those for whom he is responsible ignoring such recommendations?

Charles Clarke: There is a misunderstanding that I must clear up. When sentencing takes place, the judge recommends in such cases that consideration be given to deportation. He does not recommend that the individual be deported, but that consideration be given to deportation. That recommendation should have been looked at. That was not done correctly, but it will be done correctly and carried out properly. There are grounds for considering the difficult question of whether deportation should be used as a direct sanction in court to deal with certain cases. That is what I was referring to when I referred in the statement to the need to take a wider look at some things. That is the situation. On the numbers, I repeat what I said to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis): when I am ready to give the figures, I will do so.

Patrick Hall: My right hon. Friend will no doubt agree that one of the important issues to consider in this matter is the effect on public confidence. He will know that a constituent of mine has been widely reported as having had a hand in the Rwandan genocide. I do not know whether that is so, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the Home Office needs to play a clear role in getting the matter investigated? It undermines public confidence in my constituency and elsewhere if, as appears now, nothing seems to be done.

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend is right about public confidence. That is my single biggest concern in the whole matter. That is why I feel it is my duty to try to achieve public confidence. I shall not speak about individual cases, including the one that he mentions, but I agree that bringing people to justice in the right way must be at the core of our approach.

John Hemming: The Home Secretary's use of the passive voice makes me feel that the Government are in office, but not in power. New legislation is continually introduced, although little action is taken to make existing legislation work properly. Given the right hon. Gentleman's response that the immigration and nationality directorate has improved, is it not his responsibility to ensure that it improves and that the current legislation works, rather than continually introducing new legislation?

Charles Clarke: I accept that responsibility. Perhaps I should take the opportunity to make it clear that the comments about a case in Stockton, which the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), the leader of the Liberal Democrats made during Prime Minister's questions, were not correct. The individual in that case is in prison, pending a decision whether to deport him. He is detained under immigration laws. The fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the case is reasonable, but he gave wrong information about it, which I take the opportunity to put straight.

Mike Hall: The matter is extremely serious. Will he reconsider the information that he is prepared to put before the House? I am still dealing with a case in which a British national was deported from Canada in 1992 and killed a constituent of mine in Liverpool in 1994. I should like to know the number of foreign nationals who were released from prison in the UK between 1979 and 1997, to put the whole matter into perspective.

Charles Clarke: I am absolutely ready to do that. I will follow through my hon. Friend's suggestion and I thank him for his remarks. I have tried to prioritise the more recent and more serious cases, for reasons that he will understand. However, the implicit message of his commentsthat a system was not in place and records were started only in 1999is true. It is also true that the scale of the issue is greater now than it used to be, because there are more foreign nationals in prisons than was the case in the past, but the issues of principle remain. I will look at the precise figures, as he requested.

Nicholas Winterton: Does the Home Secretary accept that for democracy to work, there should be respect in this House and for Parliament, and that there should be trust and confidence in Government to do what they are there to donot least, to guarantee the safety of the people of this country? Does he not feel that that has been undermined by this affair? Can he say what recompense will be available to those who have lost their lives, been raped or have otherwise suffered as a result of the incompetence of the Home Office in dealing with international offenders?

Charles Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is a distinguished parliamentarian. Though there are failings in the Home Office, which we have reported and which are set out, it is important to say to him as a distinguished parliamentarian that the way that Parliament operates, with the Public Accounts Committee bringing Government to account for their conduct of affairs, as in the present case, is a credit to our parliamentary and public system. I am acutely aware, perhaps more than anybody in the House, that it is my job to try and ensure that confidence in the system is established in the way that he wants, and that is what I intend to do.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. No rule has been broken, but one of my duties is to try and gauge how long a statement should last. It will be helpful if hon. Members stand after the statement is made and do not wait until a substantial time afterwards. It is unfair.

Sadiq Khan: Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the reasons for the problems is that sentences and recommendations made by judges five, 10, 15 or 20 years ago seem not to be at the forefront of people's mind when it comes to prisoners being released? What will he do to ensure that when prisoners are released in future, judges' recommendations made five, 10, 15 or 20 years ago are on their files and to the fore?

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend is right to describe the situation in that way. As he knows, the length of sentences has, on average, been increasing over the years because the attitude of courts towards some offences has changed. The issue is the one that he knows about and which I have sought to identify: the relationship between the prison service, IND and the courts, to ensure that all the information is in front of the decision-taker at the right time. That is what we are seeking to achieve, together with colleagues in the Department for Constitutional Affairs.

Sammy Wilson: I note from the Home Secretary's statement that since August, 288 cases should have been considered, the most serious ones are currently being considered, 53 have been completed and there have been only 14 deportations. Is that due to the fact that the remaining 75 per cent. cannot be found, or are we deporting only 25 per cent. of the most serious cases? If that is so, should not the policy be called the non-deportation and non-removal of foreign nationals?

Charles Clarke: The hon. Gentleman has not quite got it straight. The 288 cases, of which 83 have been started, 53 completed and 14 resulted in deportation, are not the most serious cases. They are the cases over a particular period, so there is no relationship with seriousness. The people in the 83 cases that I mentioned have all been identified and each case has been considered carefully in its own context. There are different reasons why deportation has not been the judgment. I cannot give details on particular cases, but the decision to deport or not depends on a number of factors, including the length of sentence and other such matters. That is why I am reviewing those aspects to report back to the House and to see whether a higher proportion could more appropriately be deported. With respect, there is confusion in the hon. Gentleman's question. These issues are not the most serious ones. They are the issues in the round.

Julian Lewis: Will the Home Secretary answer the specific question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon): has he issued specific instructions to the governors of prisons that no foreign nationals will be released without a check first being carried out as to whether they have been recommended for deportation? If he has not issued such instructions, why has he not done so?

Charles Clarke: The instruction has been issued that all such assessments should take place before the end of the sentence and release time. The effect is to achieve what the hon. Gentleman set out.

Daniel Kawczynski: I am concerned about some of the foreign nationals who are from European Union countries, because of the lax border controls that we have with EU countries. Can the right hon. Gentleman give me a guarantee that if a foreign EU national commits a crime and is deported, they will never be allowed back into the United Kingdom?

Charles Clarke: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I cannot give that commitment under EU law. What I can tell him, which may interest him, is that there are about 1,000 more prisoners from other EU states in our prisons than there are UK citizens in EU prisons, if I may put it like that. That imbalance is correct. That is why we have argued in the EU, with the support of the current Austrian presidency, for a directive which provides that people should be returned to the EU country from which they come, for reasons of rehabilitation, as much as anything else. They are more likely to be able to stop reoffending in their own community. A number of countries in the EU support the change that we propose, as does the Austrian presidency. Some countries do not, for various reasons, but we are pressing for a directive that would have the effect of ensuring that EU prisoners were imprisoned in their country of origin, rather than in other places. That would have the side benefit of reducing some of the pressure on prison places in this country.

Angela Smith: I have constituents in Sheffield who will be worried about the situation. Will my right hon. Friend consider tabling new regulations that will assure my constituents that the measures necessary to tackle the situation are being taken?

Charles Clarke: I am considering doing that to strengthen the system. Unfortunately, it is not only my hon. Friend's constituents who express their concern. I am acutely aware that it is my responsibility to ensure that everyone in the country can have confidence in the robustness of the system.

Paul Goodman: In today's Prime Minister's questions, we learned that the Prime Minister did not know a key fact when the Home Secretary offered to resign yesterday. The key fact is that 288 criminals were released after the Home Secretary became aware of the problem. Given that, how can the Home Secretary stay in post?

Charles Clarke: The key fact is that between February 1999 and March 2006 1,000 people who should have been considered for deportation were not considered for deportation, and the issue concerns how that happened and how to put it right. That is the question that I have considered; that is the question that the Prime Minister and I discussed yesterday; and that is what I am determined to put right.

Gordon Banks: Today, we have heard from both the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister about the increased resources that have been put into the Home Office. Will the Home Secretary tell the House whether he considers those resources to be adequate or whether even more resources will be placed at the disposal of the Home Office?

Charles Clarke: The resources that we have allocated are adequate for that process at this time. If I reach a different view, I will allocate the appropriate resources, because the matter is such a high priority. It is true that both the immigration and nationality directorate and the Prison Service are always under pressure for resources, because they deal with some of the most difficult people in the country in a variety of different ways, which puts pressure on both staff and the individuals concerned. I do not think that resources were the fundamental point, although there were resources issues. The key issue concerned communication.

Julian Brazier: May I raise the case of Sungaradazzo Mudgyiwa, which I have raised with the Home Office in questions and correspondence? She is a lady from Zimbabwe who was sent to prison for four and a half years for conducting hundreds of thousands of pounds of fraud on the benefit system and the Post Office. Now that the Home Secretary has won his appeal on Zimbabweans being allowed to be deported under certain circumstances, will that multiple fraudster, whose son has just been issued with an antisocial behaviour order for terrorising the neighbourhood, be removed from the council house that she is currently occupying in Whitstable in my constituency, which is one of several that she has fraudulently obtained?

Charles Clarke: As the hon. Gentleman has said, the Court of Appeal judgment on Zimbabwe went the Government's way. The matter has now been returned to the asylum and immigration tribunal for consideration, which will take place as quickly as possible, but I would be surprised if a decision were made in less than a couple of months, given the way in which legal processes work. Once we have clarified the situation, we can return to cases such as the one that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned to see whether deportation is justified. As an aside, I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman supports the proposition that it is reasonable to deport people to Zimbabwe in the current circumstances, because that view is not shared across the whole House.

Anne Main: Were the people who had committed serious sexual offences put on the sex offenders register before they were released, which is vital if we are to be confident that the register will help our local police forces? If they were not put on the register, what other categories of prisoner are also exempt from being put on it?

Charles Clarke: I assure the hon. Lady that precisely the same procedures on the sex offenders register applied to the foreign nationals whom she has described as apply to anybody who commits a sex offence.

Richard Ottaway: When the Home Secretary said on Newsnight last night that very few foreign nationals had been released since he became aware of the situation, was he aware that 288 had been?

Charles Clarke: I was. That phrase has been taken up by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), the Leader of the Opposition and such distinguished interrogators as Mr. James Naughtie on the Today programme. Perhaps my use of language was infelicitous, but I was thinking of the thousands who were successfully deported over that time and the large number of people whom we are looking at in the round.

Crispin Blunt: When a judge makes a recommendation to the Home Secretary concerning deportation which is not acted on by the Home Office, does that not place the Home Secretary in contempt of court? Will the Home Secretary reflect on the rather novel doctrine of ministerial responsibility that he has advanced to the House that the bigger the shambles that he is presiding over, the more essential it is that he remains in office?

Charles Clarke: I do not believe that I am in contempt of court. As the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) will confirm, Home Secretaries often risk being in contempt of court and many judgments are made about the Home Secretary of the day, but I do not think that I am in contempt of court in this case.

James Duddridge: Why did the Home Secretary offer to resign?

Charles Clarke: I have given the reason a number of times. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was present earlier.

James Duddridge: indicated assent.

Charles Clarke: In that case, may I courteously suggest through you, Mr. Speaker, that he opens his ears?

Ben Wallace: Given that it is 24 hours since the Home Secretary personally took charge of the issue, if any more cases come to light or if any overseas offenders are released without being considered for deportation, will he then resign?

Charles Clarke: As I have said, I have taken responsibility for the matter not for 24 hours, but for the whole time that I have been Home Secretary. The issue involves getting it right, which is what I intend to do.

Gregory Barker: Did the Home Secretary offer his resignation to the Prime Minister before the Prime Minister was in possession of the full facts? If that was the case, does he not think it fair for him to repeat his offer to the Prime Minister?

Charles Clarke: I have dealt with that matter as fully as I intend to.

David Davies: Will the Home Secretary tell us how many times in total he has offered his resignation to the Prime Minister? Is it once? Is it twice? And will it be a case of third time lucky for the public?

Charles Clarke: No.

Points of Order

Peter Bone: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has just confirmed that the Government have failed in their guarantee that no one waits more than six months for an NHS operation. Last night, however, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne), claimed at Hansard column 549 that the number of people waiting more than six months for an NHS operation is zero.   Having written to Health Ministers, asked parliamentary questions and secured a Westminster Hall debate, what further action can I take to ensure that Ministers make factually correct statements to this House?

Mr. Speaker: Back Benchers must persevere and keep annoying Ministers at all times. Since becoming Speaker I have missed the Tea Room, where senior Members can provide good advice on how to make things awkward for Ministers. The hon. Gentleman is engaged in an apprenticeship, and he should speak to some of the journeymen and women.

Greg Clark: On a point of order, earlier this year I tabled a parliamentary question asking the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment his Department had made of trends in the loss of privately owned green space as a result of new residential development. On 11 January at Hansard column 691, the Minister replied that there is no information on any loss of privately owned green space. However, for the purposes of an article in The Daily Telegraph at the weekend on the same subject, an ODPM spokesman was able to provide such an estimate. Will you confirm that the Government should not provide less information in response to parliamentary questions than is provided to members of the press? Perhaps you will urge Ministers to provide hon. Members with the basis for the estimate that was given to The Daily Telegraph.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will recall that I ruled yesterday that answers to parliamentary questions are more important than any briefing to the press. I have made that ruling, so perhaps he should table more questions on the same subject and see whether he gets more precise answers. If not, I am sure that he will report the matter to me.

Independent School Closures (Provision for Pupils)

Norman Baker: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a fund to facilitate the uninterrupted education of pupils in independent schools facing closure; to require independent schools to make contributions to such a fund; to place a duty on independent schools to make plans relating to the welfare of their pupils in the event of their going into administration; and for connected purposes.
	You and others may have seen the stories in the newspapers, Mr. Speaker, and understand why I have introduced the Bill. The event that triggered the Bill was the sudden closureliterally overnightof Newlands school in my constituency, which had been there for 150 years. On 3 April, the governors issued a press release stating that the school would close that day. That meant that 450 pupils, many of whom face exams very shortly, were out of a school and 200 hundred staff were suddenly out of a job. Some of the pupils were not even at the school but in Sri Lanka. It is a boarding establishment, so some pupils did not even know where they were going to sleep. It is intolerable that that situation could arise and unbelievable that there was no safety net for children whose education is important to them. A private school is not a fish and chip shop, and it demands better protection for those who use it. It is an independent educational establishment, and a private business in that sense, but it is delivering an essential service to those children who use it, and it is important that we have safeguards to protect the education of young people in such circumstances.
	The Bill would have helped in that situation and would help on other occasions when such closures take place. They are happily few in number. I am told by the Independent Schools Council that there are probably five or six a year among the schools within its remit, but perhaps rather more among those that are not registered with it. However, one school is too many if one is a pupil whose education has been adversely affected.
	The reasons for the closure of the school are many. Its financial management was not as good as it had been and its bank was not as helpful as it might have been. When it became apparent that the school would have to go into liquidation, it reached an agreement with the private company, CognitaChris Woodhead's companyfor a transfer of the assets so that it could continue. However, the landlords refused to reassign the lease. My Bill would have enabled the school to carry on or, if necessary, to close down in good order at the end of the summer term after the exams were out of the way. I offered to act as an intermediary within the 24 hours that we had before the school finally closed. I am sorry to say that the landlords would not speak to me. I subsequently had a threatening call from their lawyera rather unpleasant man called Julian Golding, who threatened to report me to the parliamentary ombudsman. I was just doing my job, and that was not a responsible or helpful attitude from the owners of the school.
	It then turned out, following some very good reporting by The Times, that three years previously, the family who owned the school land had signed a deal with a property developer aimed at pushing the school out and using the site for the development of houses worth between 2 million and 3 million. Neither staff nor parents had any knowledge of the agreement signed with the developers, Allum Estates, in 2003. It is appalling that the education of children should be made secondary to the quick profit to be made from the development of land for housing purposes.
	The school's announcement that it was going into liquidation had several consequences. Parents, many of whom were abroad, were telephoned at 4 o'clock the day before to be told that, as of tomorrow, the school was not functioning and asked to arrange for their children to be collected as best they could. Children who had exams coming up had nowhere to go to take those exams. Other independent schools in the area that offered to help were besieged with applications and suddenly had big increases in their rolls. There was tremendous pressure on the state sector in the shape of East Sussex county council, which had to find places for a large number of children who were suddenly on its doorstep. None of that was good planning and none of it was satisfactory for the children concerned.
	The site was left vacant, without any management or security. The swimming pool was broken into and drunk teenagers were found swimming in it. Furniture was tipped into the pond. The door to the design and technology unit, which was filled with saws, drills and other implements, was forced down and damaged. Anarchy had broken out.
	There is a happy ending at this particular school. The pupils felt very strongly about the situation, and gave me a petition with hundreds of signatures. I commend them for their efforts in that regard. Two parents have come forward with more than 2 million to try to help the school to keep going on alternative premises. Nevertheless, at the very least the pupils have had their education disrupted; at worst, some of them might have been in a position whereby they could not take exams for which they have studied hard over a long period of time.
	The Independent Schools Council recognises that there is a problem. It would prefer a solution involving a voluntary arrangement between independent schools rather than the Government intervening directly. I have no view on thatif they can sort themselves out, that is fine by me. For the time being, the reality is that there are only ad hoc arrangements that depended on the good will of independent schools nearby and the good performance of East Sussex county council in picking up the problems. Such a situation cannot be allowed to happen again. We need a safety net to ensure that, in the event of a school going into liquidation, something can be done to helpat the very least, by closing it in good order.
	If an airline passenger is left stranded abroad because the airline has gone bust, they are flown home by another airline, because the airlines have constructed a mechanism where that can happen. I am asking for something similar in the independent schools sector to ensure that the 450 children at this school and other children who attend independent schools are properly cared for and that such a situation cannot arise again.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Norman Baker, Mr.   Phil Willis, Tim Loughton, Charles Hendry, Michael Jabez Foster, David Lepper and Mr. Nigel Waterson.

Independent School Closures (Provision for Pupils)

Norman Baker accordingly presented a Bill to establish a fund to facilitate the uninterrupted education of pupils in independent schools facing closure; to require independent schools to make contributions to such a fund; to place a duty on independent schools to make plans relating to the welfare of their pupils in the event of their going into administration; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 14 July, and to be printed [Bill 174].

ADJOURNMENT (MAY)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 25,
	That this House, at its rising on Thursday 27th April 2006, to adjourn till Tuesday 2nd May 2006.[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
	Question agreed to.

Northern Ireland Bill (Allocation of Time)

Peter Hain: I beg to move,
	That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Northern Ireland Bill
	Timetable
	1.(1) Proceedings on Second Reading shall be completed at this day's sitting and shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at the moment of interruption.
	(2) Proceedings in Committee, on consideration and on Third Reading shall be completed in one day and shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at the moment of interruption on that day.
	Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put
	2.(1) When the Bill has been read a second time it shall, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put.
	(2) When the Order of the Day is read for the House to resolve itself into Committee on the Bill, the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
	3. On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question and, if the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
	4. For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 the Speaker or Chairman shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)
	(a)  any Question already proposed from the Chair;
	(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
	(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
	(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.
	5. On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
	Consideration of Lords Amendments
	6.(1) Any Lords Amendments to the Bill shall be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	(2) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, one hour after their commencement.
	7.(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 6.
	(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question already proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.
	(3) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment the Speaker shall then put forthwith
	(a) a single Question on any further Amendments to the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, and
	(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.
	(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith
	(a) a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment, and
	(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.
	(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House disagrees to a Lords Amendment.
	(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees to all the remaining Lords Amendments.
	(7) As soon as the House has agreed or disagreed to a Lords Amendment, or disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown and relevant to the Lords Amendment.
	Subsequent stages
	8.(1) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	(2) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
	9.(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 8.
	(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.
	(3) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.
	(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message.
	(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.
	Reasons Committee
	10.(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons in relation to the Bill and the appointment of its Chairman.
	(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
	(3) Proceedings in the Committee shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.
	(4) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (3) the Chairman shall
	(a) first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair but not yet decided, and
	(b) then put forthwith successively Questions on motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their Amendments.
	(5) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further Question being put.
	Miscellaneous
	11. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply in so far as necessary for the purposes of this Order.
	12. The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 shall apply to those proceedings.
	13. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
	14. No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken or to re-commit the Bill; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
	15. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
	16.(1) This paragraph applies if
	(a) a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) has been stood over to Seven o'clock, Four o'clock or Three o'clock (as the case may be), but
	(b) proceedings to which this Order applies have begun before then.
	(2) Proceedings on that Motion shall stand postponed until the conclusion of those proceedings.
	17. If a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day is one to which a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, in accordance with this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.
	18. If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
	19. Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
	The programme motion is based on discussions through the usual channels and reflects the urgent nature of the Bill. The House will already be aware that our plan is that the Assembly should be up and running by 15 May. For reasons that the Prime Minister set out in his joint statement with the Taoiseach at Armagh on 6 April and which I shall expand on later, we believe it is crucial that real momentum is now given to the pursuit of devolution in Northern Ireland. The 15 May date would give Assembly Members six weeks to elect a First Minister and Deputy First Minister and to make the necessary ministerial nominations before the beginning of July, when the Assembly traditionally begins its summer recess. It is for that reason that the Bill needs to be given swift passage through this House.
	Although the purposes the Bill serves are vital, it is a modest production. It contains six clauses, only two of which are substantive, and three schedules. Most of its provisions change the law only temporarily. The Assembly will operate in the new manner set out in the Bill by no later than 24 November. After that, the arrangements in the present law will be revivedwhether that is full devolution, as provided for in the Northern Ireland Act 1998, or the continued suspension of devolution under the Northern Ireland Act 2000.
	I believe that the two days allotted under the programme motion is a substantial allowance of the time of the House for the discussion of such a Bill.
	Question agreed to.

Northern Ireland Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Peter Hain: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	The measure prepares the way for the restoration of devolved Government in Northern Ireland. On 15 May, the Assembly will meet for the first time for nearly four years. The Bill sets in statute 24 November as the date by which we must be able to restore devolution. That is the date by which the political parties in Northern Ireland must take responsibility for the Government of Northern Ireland, as they have been mandated to do.

Ian Paisley: Will the Secretary of State make it clear that the Assembly to which he refers is not the Assembly?

Peter Hain: Indeed. The Assembly that the Bill defines is not the Assembly as defined under the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The right hon. Gentleman is right to clarify that.
	The twenty-fourth of November represents not a threat but great promisea promise that the Belfast agreement holds out. The patience of all those who want locally accountable Government in Northern Ireland should be tested no longer. Successive British and Irish Governments, with the warm support of US Administrations, have been working with the parties to bring peace and stability to Northern Ireland. The truth is that there is little more we can do. The parties in Northern Ireland must now take ownership of the process and see it through.
	The twenty-fourth of November can, therefore, be a beginning or an end. The leadership of the parties have to decide which it is to be. As ever, the biggest obstacle to progress is the mutual lack of trust in the process. Unionists need to know that the republicans, with whom they are being asked to share power, have turned away from paramilitary activity and that they will not accept, tacitly or otherwise, criminal activity, whatever its source. They also need to know, before criminal justice and policing powers are devolved, that support for the criminal justice system and the Police Service of Northern Ireland is absolutely unequivocal. That is not too much to ask.
	For their part, republicans and nationalists need to know that Unionists are serious about sharing power on a fair and equitable basis and not simply paying lip service to the theory while always finding reasons to avoid the practice. That is not too much to ask.

Patrick Cormack: The Secretary of State has, for understandable reasons, played around with dates a lot recently. However, he is not telling the House that, were the parties in sight of an agreement on 24 November, he would bring down the guillotine, is he? Presumably we are considering not a final and ultimate but a flexible date.

Peter Hain: I am afraid that I cannot reassure the hon. Gentleman about that. The Bill sets the date in statute. As I said earlier, the Government will not blink. If eleventh-hour attempts are made on 24 November to force us to blink, people will be disappointed.

Nigel Dodds: Further to the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) made when he sought clarification of the nature of the Assembly that will be set up under the Bill, will the Secretary of State confirm that, on 25 November, the Northern Ireland Assembly that was established under the 1998 Act will continue to exist?

Peter Hain: The Northern Ireland Assembly as set up under the 1998 Act remains in suspension. Once the date has passed, if there were the prospect of restoration againI know that the hon. Gentleman is actively involved in trying to promote a process that could be successfully concludedthere will be no attempt to prolong the life of the Assembly for which the Bill provides beyond 24 November. He knows that any attempt to seek restoration laterfor example, in a year or two after 24 Novemberwould be done under the 1998 Act arrangements. We would move straight to selecting a First Minister and Deputy First Minister and run d'Hondt to select an Executive. If that failed after six weeks, an election would be called.

Lembit �pik: I was grateful to the Secretary of State for his response in Northern Ireland questions about deadlines. Will he assure us that they are genuinely not flexible? I ask that because, as he knows, my great anxiety is that the Government's credibility has been somewhat tarnished by allowing deadlines to be flexible and, indeed, by occasionally ignoring them. If he wants the Bill to work, he must impress on everybody that the deadlines are not negotiable.

Peter Hain: I have already done that but I am happy to accept the hon. Gentleman's invitation to emphasise and underline as much as necessaryin flashing neon lights, if he wishes and if that is not a mixed metaphorthat the deadline is for real. The salaries and allowances will stop at midnight on 24 November. The Assembly will no longer sit, which it will be entitled to do after 15 May, and that will be that. I do not want that and, as I shall explain, there will be serious consequences if the parties do not act maturely and take their responsibilities to reflect the mandate and the job that they were elected to do. If they do not take that seriously, the consequences will be serious, but that will be their decision, not mine.
	The 10th report of the Independent Monitoring Commission was published today. I want to remind the House that the IMC has previously stated unequivocally that the IRA no longer represents a terrorist threat. That is clear, unambiguous and, in the context of all that has gone before, historic. That followed the IRA statement of July 2005 and the act of decommissioning later that year in September. Two of the demands, not only of Unionists, were that Sinn Fein should say that the war was over and that the IRA should decommission its arsenal of weapons. Both have now been done.
	The report states:
	It remains our absolutely clear view that the PIRA leadership has committed itself to following a peaceful path. It is working to bring the whole organisation fully along with it and has expended considerable effort to refocus the movement in support of its objective. In the last three months this process has involved the further dismantling of PIRA as a military structure.
	The IMC also states:
	We are not aware of current terrorist, paramilitary or violent activity sanctioned by the leadership. We have no indications in the last three months of training, engineering activity, recent recruitment or targeting for the purposes of attack.

William McCrea: The IMC report states that
	some members, including some senior ones . . . are still involved in crime, including offences such as fuel laundering, money laundering, extortion, tax evasion and smuggling.
	How can it be suggested that that is distinct from the IRA organisation when one of those persons happens to be the IRA chief of staff?

Peter Hain: Because I rely on what the IMC says. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to study what it said about the matter. Any illegal activity, including smuggling across the border to a specific farm and in other areas, is being clamped down upon, as he knows. I know that he will enthusiastically support the Assets Recovery Agency and the police service on both sides of the border.
	Let me remind the hon. Gentleman of what the IMC said. The report states:
	We have found signs that PIRA continues to seek to stop criminal activity by its members and to prevent them from engaging in it. We believe that some senior PIRA members may be playing a key role in this.

Gordon Banks: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Peter Hain: Let me finish the point and then I shall gladly give way.
	Paragraph 2.14 is important to answering the fair question that the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea) asked. It states:
	We recognise, as we did when we reported three months ago, that the leadership is engaged in a challenging task in ensuring full compliance with this strategy. The response of members will naturally enough be influenced by the surrounding political circumstances as well as by long-held personal views. It is to be expected that there may be instances where members or associates do not always follow the leadership's line.
	The report says that, of course, there may be individual republicans, who still call themselves republicans and perhaps attach themselves to the name Provisional IRA, who are engaged in illegal activity. However, that is outwith the organisation and without the sanction and approval of the leadership and certainly without its prior knowledge. That is completely different from the position in the past, when the IRA was organised from the centre and from the top. It was not only a violent terrorist organisation but it undertook, conducted and organised criminal activity to raise funds to finance that violence and terrorism. The difference now is that it is not a question whether individual republicans have come into full compliance or not. Given the culture that has existed for too long in Northern Ireland, it would be difficult to imagine that everybody would behave absolutely perfectly, as a very interesting passage in the IMC report acknowledges. The crucial point is that the organisation's leadership is delivering on what it promised and the hon. Gentleman should welcome that, because it is indeed historic.

William McCrea: The IMC report refers to some senior members of the IRA. We are not talking about the ordinary members. If even the chief of staff is involved in the criminality, how can we be expected to believe that the organisation is not involved?

Peter Hain: I can only take the IMC's word for this. The independent report makes it absolutely clear that the leadership of the IRA is determined to stop any illegal activity by any of its members, however low or high level they may have been in the past

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Peter Hain: I am answering the question put by the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea), but after that, of course, I will give way. However, I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks) first.
	At some point, all Members of this House, including members of the Democratic Unionist party, will have to recognise that something momentous has happened, in the past year in particular. An organisation that was committed to bombing and shooting, and to the criminal activity that financed that, has now stopped doing those things. Its leadership has decided that the organisation will not get involved in anything like that again. But do not take my word for it; take the IMC's word for it.

Gordon Banks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the IMC report published today throws down a significant challenge to the loyalist paramilitaries, who appear to have been unsuccessful in reducing their illegal activities, including shootings? Does he accept the IMC's comments that the loyalist organisations were responsible for 95 per cent. of the casualties of shootings and 76 per cent. of the casualties of assaults during the period examined in the report, and that this matter must be addressed before the process can significantly move forward?

Peter Hain: I very much agree with my hon. Friend's point. It is important to note from the IMC report that the main problem is that the illegal activity no longer comes from the IRA, as it did for decadesoften of a kind organised from the centre of the organisationbut that it comes from loyalist paramilitaries and from dissident republicans in the Continuity IRA and the Real IRA. That is a sea change and I think that people on all sides of the House ought to be prepared to acknowledge that and move on.

Patrick Cormack: I accept the point that the Secretary of State has just made. Of course there has been an enormous change, but very real problems remain. If an organisation truly repudiates people for what they are doing, would not its logical course of action be to expel them? Would not Sinn Fein and the IRA gain enormous credit and credibility if they expelled those who were disobeying their orders?

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point and I am not going to argue with him about that. However, I am sure that he will understand the point that I am making, and the spirit in which I am making it. I would like from him and from others an acknowledgement that there has been a sea change.

Patrick Cormack: I have acknowledged that point. There has been a remarkable change, but there is still comprehensive evidenceincluding in today's reportof the involvement of senior figures in criminality. My point is that those senior figures should be repudiated by expulsion, which would give real credibility to those who are claiming to be democrats.

Peter Hain: As I have said, I am not going to argue that point with the hon. Gentleman. At Question Time, I referred to the statement by the IRA, which is historic in itself. In the past, the IRA never acknowledged that illegal activities such as bank robberies amounted to criminality, because it never recognised the ability of the rule of law of the British state to restrict it from doing what it liked in Northern Ireland. I think that the hon. Gentleman will understand that; I know that Northern Ireland politicians will. Now, it has made a statement that is, in its own way, historic, and I think that the House should note it. The Easter statement by the IRA states:
	The IRA has no responsibility for the tiny number of former republicans
	who may or may not have been expelled; I do not know
	who have embraced criminal activity. They do so for self-gain. We repudiate this activity and denounce those involved.
	That kind of statement has never been made by the IRA before, and I think that it ought to be acknowledged.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: The Secretary of State will understand the concern on this side of the House. Of course we recognise that there has been significant progress, but the chief of staff of the Provisional IRA, whose assets were recently seized by the Assets Recovery Agency, the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Garda and the Criminal Assets Bureau, is still in position at the head of the organisation. It is difficult to separate the organisation from the individual in such circumstances. That undermines the credibility of the Secretary of State's statement that the leadership is trying to bring this problem to an end.

Peter Hain: I say in all humility to the hon. Gentleman that he is taking issue with the IMC, not with me. The IMC is the body that is distinguishing between what the leadership is doing, with a great deal of success, to close down criminal operations and end violent activity, and what individuals associated with the organisationor who even hold positions within itare still doing. The IMC says that the leadership has now clearly set out on a path for which it ought to be given credit, and that it is delivering on that commitment.

Ian Paisley: Mr. Adams did not condemn the man who has been mentioned here. He said that he was a decent farmer, that he was a most hard-working man, and that all the money that he had gained had come from the proper labour of his own hands. That is the testimony of Mr. Adams. How can we say that a man such as that is now to be held up to the general public as proof positive that the IRA has made all the necessary changes? There have been changes, and it was admitted today that many were made because of the pressure brought to bear by the Unionist population. I welcome that statement, but we must be honest with our people. I know a family who live on the border, and they have suffered terribly at the hands of this man. They have been taken out, had bags put over their heads and kept in the back of a van for six hours. That sort of thing ought not to happen.

Peter Hain: Of course I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that that sort of thing ought not to happen. It is difficult for me to comment in detail on this case because it is the subject of legal action, and of action by the police, the security forces and the Assets Recovery Agency. The agency has shown a determination to recover assets that have been illegally acquired by paramilitary organisations and individuals, and those efforts will continue, whether on farms across the border or anywhere else. However, I note that the president of Sinn Fein, Gerry Adams, has condemned all illegal and criminal activity by all republicans, as has his deputy, Martin McGuinness. That ought to go on to the record as well.

David Simpson: Is it not a well-known fact in Northern Ireland that the Provisional IRA controls all the republicans' activity? In many cases at the moment, the Provisional IRA is contracting a lot of the work out. We have seen what has happened with the Continuity IRA. I have raised the question of this activity with the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr.   Woodward) in the House on several occasions. According to recent press releases, the Continuity IRA now intends to increase its bombing campaign against the Government and the politicians.

Peter Hain: Yes, but the hon. Gentleman knows that the Continuity IRA is a split-off from the Provisional IRA

David Simpson: indicated dissent.

Peter Hain: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman disputes that, because I believe that the facts speak for themselves. Indeed, the IMC has repeatedly distinguished the Continuity IRA and the Real IRA as separate factions operating on their own, against the wishes of the leadership of the Provisional IRA and the leadership of Sinn Fein. Yes, CIRA and RIRA are dangerous outfits, and we will crack down on them. Indeed, we have been very successful in doing so, but there are no guarantees in this regard. Again, I say to him and his colleaguesI am sure that he will take this in good spiritthat there will come a time when DUP Members, having stood firm and having seen results flow from that, will have to acknowledge the massive changes that have occurred[Interruption.] Well, I think that they will have to acknowledge that.

Peter Robinson: There is no DUP Member who does not recognise the progress that has been made. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) said during Northern Ireland questions, far from denying that progress has been made, we are saying that DUP strategythe zero tolerance policyhas produced that change. If progress is being made as a result of that strategy, does not it automatically follow that we should maintain that strategy, so that all the grey areas and loose ends are dealt with?

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman has acknowledged that, as the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) made clear earlier today, there has been a substantial change. We are light years away from where we were at the time of the troubles, and I see that he nods in agreement. There will have to be an assessment, which he and his party are entitled to make, as to whether adopting the current stance will end that by encouraging all republicans to commit themselves to democratic and peaceful politicsthat involves dialogue, building trust and, ultimately, sharing poweror whether Unionists will continue to say that they are not willing to co-operate. That is the choice facing all Northern Ireland's politicians.

Tobias Ellwood: I served in Northern Ireland and was aware of the progress made in bringing the IRA to the table and making it realise that putting down its arms and talking about issues was the way forward. My concern then as now, as expressed by other parties, is that the nasty work is being outsourced to other splinter organisations, which is undermining everything that we are trying to achieve. What is the IRA doing to stop those splinter groups carrying out their activities? As long as they carry out such activities, everything that this House and everyone in Northern Ireland is trying to achieve is undermined.

Peter Hain: The IMC report published today showsI hope that the hon. Gentleman will read all of it if he has not had a chance to do sothat if the Provisional IRA has dismantled its military structure and capability to act violently, one of the consequences is that its capability to sort out CIRA and RIRA, as he seems to be inviting it to do, disappears, if it is not completely or partially diminished. The people who should sort out CIRA and RIRAwe are doing thisare the security forces, the police, the Security Service and, where appropriate, the Army, as happened recently in Lurgan. That is the course on which we are embarked.

Gordon Banks: How damaging does the Secretary of State feel that the statement by the Ulster Volunteer Force that it does not intend to do anything constructive up to 24 November is to the plans to restore devolved power? Will he ask all members of Northern Ireland political parties who are able to influence the decision to take a constructive role in doing so?

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend makes a good point; that the UVF, Ulster Defence Association and loyalist paramilitaries generally are still engaged in activity that is completely wrong and is effectively gangsterism. No real political objective can be easily attached to them any more, whatever honourable motivations they might have had a long time ago. There is no longer any political case or ideological argument behind their paramilitary and criminal activity, and it must stop.

Peter Robinson: Part of the UVF's reasoning for its delaying statement was the threat implied, if not explicitly, in paragraph 10 of the joint statement by the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland and Her Majesty's Government. The Secretary of State has clearly failed thus far to convince the Unionist community that what that paragraph meant was not joint management and joint authority. Would he like to make another try today?

Peter Hain: I am happy to repeat what I think that I said last week in my statement. There is no question of joint authority or joint management of Northern Ireland's affairs involving Dublin. There was some overexcited spin around that statement, which did not come from Belfast, this Government or No. 10 Downing street. I will leave the matter of where it came from to the hon. Gentleman's imagination.

Mark Durkan: Perhaps in a slip of the tongue, the Secretary of State referred to whatever honourable motivations loyalist paramilitaries might have had in the past. May I make it clear to him that there were no honourable motivations for the UVF or UDA in the past? We never bought the line that was being retailed that their actions were purely reactive to republican violence. His comments were reminiscent of the Northern Ireland Office's failure for a long time to outlaw the UDA. Given that the IMC report today highlighted that loyalist paramilitary groups are active, violent and up to their necks in crime, and that we know that they have not decommissioned anything and now feel free to say that decommissioning is off their agenda, what clear message are the Government sending to loyalist paramilitaries?

Peter Hain: The message is crystal clear; that they should close down their paramilitary activity and gangsterism and stop their criminality now, and not before time. The point I was trying to makeI will not be drawn further down this routewas that the people who join paramilitary groups claim to be doing so for honourable objectives, whether one agreed with them or not. Their methods were completely unacceptable, but at least they claimed a political motivation; that was my point. There is no longer any political motivation for any of that activity from loyalists or dissident republicans.
	I need to make some progress, or there will be even less time for other Members to make contributions. Following the publication of the eighth report of the IMC, much was made of the suggestion that not all weapons and ammunition had been handed over for decommissioning in September 2005. In that report, the IMC did not say that the PIRA leadership had in any way given instructions to retain arms. Today, the IMC says:
	Indeed our present assessment is that such arms as were reported to us as having been retained, were withheld under local control despite the instructions of the leadership.
	The IMC continued:
	The relevant points are that the amount of un-surrendered material was not significant in comparison to what was decommissioned and that these reports do not cast doubt on the declared intention of the PIRA leadership to eschew terrorism and to follow the political path.
	Much was also made of references to intelligence gathering in the eighth report, about which the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) was especially concerned. The 10th report says:
	While PIRA continues to receive information from members and sympathisers, we do not know of information being proactively sought. We are currently not aware of intelligence-related activity which is outside the aims of the July statement.
	On criminality, the IMC report says that it has found signs that PIRA continues to seek to stop criminal activity by its members and to prevent them from engaging it. It continues:
	We believe that some senior PIRA members may be playing a key role in this.

Lembit �pik: The Secretary of State is right that I am interested in the finding regarding intelligence. For clarification, does he interpret that as meaning that the Provisional IRA has closed down its strategic intelligence-gathering procedures, in the sense that it used to gather intelligence to perpetrate politically motivated terrorist crimes?

Peter Hain: That is exactly my interpretation of what the IMC says. In relation to the statement that any information that the organisation receives is not outside the terms of the July statement, I can only conclude that it is the kind of political information that all political parties like to receive on our opponents, and that it is not for any other purpose. Again, we have seen a major change. About a year ago, it was reported that the IRA was still gathering intelligence, even though it had stopped targeting and had no apparent intent to commit any paramilitary actions. Now we know that the intelligence activity that may or may not be going on in terms of the receipt of information is, presumably, entirely political, and is certainly not directed towards supporting any violent, paramilitary or illegal action.
	The IMC report welcomes Gerry Adams's comments in which he supported the pursuit of criminal assetsthis is important, given the questions that I was asked earlierand said that anybody involved in criminality should face the full rigours of the law. That was very welcome indeed. Since the report was compiled, the IRA has reiterated that position in its Easter message. The IMC draws the distinction between what members or former members of an organisation may do as individuals and what has been authorised, sanctioned or approved by the organisation itself, a distinction acknowledged by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) in his very interesting speech to the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body in Killarney on Tuesday.
	In the context of believing what people do as well as what they say, that distinction is crucial. We should all take encouragement from what is now clearly the case according to the IMC; namely that the IRA has delivered, and is continuing to deliver, on its promise to end all violence and criminality, so that republicans are committed to democratic and peaceful methods. Of course there are individual criminals out there, some claiming republican or loyalist affiliation; but as the recent activity of the Garda, the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Criminal Assets Bureau and the Assets Recovery Agency has shown, they will be ruthlessly pursued, whoever they are. In short, there has been and continues to be momentous progress to report.
	Trust is a two-way process. Where there has been deep division and where fears and suspicion were well-founded, trust is not going to emerge freshly minted. It must be developed and built on and the only way in which to do that is through dialogue.If parties are serious about testing the bona fides of others, they should do it as we do in this House, face to face. If parties are serious about devolution, they should engage with one another. If parties make a point of their mandate as leaders of their community, they should respect the mandate of others and show real leadership.
	Frankly, it is hard for an outsider to understand why members of the DUP will talk to Sinn Fein in television studios and sit with Sinn Fein members as local councillors, but will not talk to Sinn Fein privately or as Members of the Legislative Assembly. It is equally hard to see why Sinn Fein is able to meet the Chief Constable in Downing street, while the Sinn Fein chairman of a council will not talk to a district commander at a civic function. What Northern Ireland needs is mature politics. Between May 15 and 24 November, we will see whether the people of Northern Ireland will get the leadership that they deserve.
	Let me now deal with the Bill. The framework is simple; it brings back the Members of the Assembly to meet in order to prepare for the restoration of devolved government, which means selecting an Executive. If they achieve that by 24 November we shall proceed immediately to devolution, with Assembly elections in May 2008. If they do not, we shall have to proceed by other means, and the Assembly election scheduled for May 2007 will be postponed indefinitely.
	The Assembly would meet on 15 May in a new mode. It would have no legislative powers, there would be no Executive and hence the direct rule arrangements would continue. The Bill provides for me to refer to the Assembly first the selection of a First Minister and Deputy First Minister, then the running of the d'Hondt process to fill the other ministerial posts in the Executive. I can also refer other matters to the Assembly as I think fit.
	The arrangements are similar to those that applied when the Assembly was first elected in 1998. I have power to make directions about procedure, including the appointment of a Presiding Officer and the provision of Standing Orders. That is important, because the Assembly in its early days must not be distracted from its main tasks by long-drawn-out discussions on preliminary issues.
	As I have said, I intend to appoint Mrs Eileen Bell as Presiding Officer. She is highly respected among the parties, and I am sure that she will fill her post with distinction. In the operation of the Assembly, I hope that there can be the greatest possible consensus between us and the parties, and in that event I shall be only too happy to leave the Assembly to sort out internal issues for itself.

Lady Hermon: Will the Secretary of State confess that it is regrettable that the new creature created by the Bill has been christened the Assembly? It gives the inaccurate impression that this is the Northern Ireland Assembly back in shadow mode, and of course it is nothing of the kind. Does the Secretary of State regret that?

Peter Hain: I am sorry; I am always reluctant to disagree with the hon. Lady, but I do not regret it at all. A body consisting of 108 elected Members of the Legislative Assembly will meet, and I do not know what we could call it other than an Assembly.
	I am encouraged by early discussions with the parties to believe that there is a serious intention to make the Assembly work. Today we are making available an illustrative set of initial Standing Orders, on which we shall work further before 15 May. They can readily be supplemented at a later stage if need be, and if parties or individual Members have any comments, we shall be glad to take them on board. I am ready to refer to the Assembly a range of matters that will feature among the key concerns of a new devolved Administration. As I have said, we would take account of the Assembly's views on such matters, especially if they had cross-community support. They might include education reform, local government reform, water charges or rates rises. They might also include modifications to the institutions.
	Northern Ireland's business community has presented the Prime Minister and me with an interesting policy agenda for economic reform. We have suggested that it would be a suitable matter for business leaders to present to the Assembly soon after 15 May. Obviously, if the Assembly were then to work on and agree a serious and costed economic policy reform programme, the Government would be obliged to consider it seriously.
	We have been pressed to say that we would automatically give effect to views expressed by the Assembly. We as a Government are accountable in this place for the good government of Northern Ireland pending the restoration of devolution, and it would be wrong for us to have our hands tied completely. We cannot be accountable both to this Parliament and to an Assembly that is not even fully restored, and where there is little incentive to make the tough decisions that are needed. It is obvious, however, that a cross-community view from the Assembly would be very influential with us. The sooner devolution is restored, the sooner the Assembly will have complete authority over such issues.
	I have been pressed to say why we are proceeding on matters such as education and local council reform when the Assembly could and should determine those matters. My answer is that our measures are absolutely necessary in the public interest and as I am far from certain that some of their most vociferous opponents are actually willing to restore the Assembly, why should I let them have their cake and eat it by delaying the reforms? Either they want to determine these policies, or they do not. If they do, let them get on with it and restore the institutions as soon after 15 May as possible. The longer they delay, the more irreversible these reforms will be, and the more I will have to decide the detail rather than leaving it to Assembly Members. It is their choice, not mine.

Lembit �pik: The Secretary of State has made an interesting point. Will he confirm, for the sake of absolute clarity, that he would be willing to countenance self-determination in the education system in regard to whatever reforms may take place if the Assembly sits again? I ask because if that is the case, it surely gives those involved in education a strong incentive to restore the Assembly so that they can determine for themselves what happens to, for example, selection.

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman is right, and I am grateful for the opportunity that he has given me to spell out the position even more clearly than I have already. If restoration is achieved very quickly after 15 May, as I hope it will be, the order abolishing the 11-plus will not have gone through Parliament. A restored Assembly will then have the opportunity to decide what it wants to do about education policy. I know that the hon. Gentleman disagrees with me, but I happen to think that the policy is right, and is in the interests not just of those who do well at the top of the education ladder but of those who do terribly at the bottom. In any event, I think that that is an appropriate decision for a restored Assembly to make. However, because I believe that abolition is in the public interest in Northern Ireland, I will not delay in the hope that the Assembly may be restored at some point; next year, the following year or whenever people get around to it.
	My message is absolutely clear. Some may think it blunt, but it is clear. If people want to make decisions for themselves, let them get on with making those decisions for themselves.

Sammy Wilson: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Peter Hain: I give way to a Member of the Assembly whom I invite to be precisely that.

Sammy Wilson: Does the Secretary of State not also accept that the converse is true? The more that he pushes through unpopular measures that the Assembly cannot change, the less incentive there is to have an Assembly. It will be incapable of doing the very things that people want it to do, anyway, because he has pushed through these unpopular changes.

Peter Hain: That may or may not be true of a couple of important issues, but let us consider education policy, in which the hon. Gentleman takes a close and expert interest; indeed, I pay tribute to him in that regard. As I understand it, he disagrees fundamentally with the abolition of the 11-plus. However, even if the relevant order goes through because restoration of the Assembly does not occur before the order completes its parliamentary process, there are still a whole series of other matters to be decided, such as exactly what the new admissions arrangements will be and exactly what role the pupil profile will play. Some of those matters will be determined by further legislation, and others simply by policy implementation. So it is not true that there is less of an incentive to restore the Assembly; there is more of an incentive, because the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues can then tailor the policy exactly as they wish. The same point applies, by the way, to local government reform, water charges and a range of other issues.

Patrick Cormack: I am very grateful to the Secretary of State, who, as always, is very courteous in giving way. Would it not be a logical extension of his carrot-and-stick policy to say that no orders will be introduced in this House until the November deadline, given that, as he made plain to me earlier, that is a real deadline?

Peter Hain: I am afraid that, for a variety of reasons, that is not possible. For example, there is a yawning gap in the financing of Northern Ireland's water and sewerage system, and a gap in the provision of public financing, both of which can be filled through water charges. If we do not proceed in this way, we will leave a massive hole in the budget from April 2007. Here, the disagreement is not so much one of policy; whatever Opposition politicians may say, privately, they recognise the need for the action that we are taking. However, if there is an alternative view on how low-income families should be treatedan alternative to the special subsidies that we are providing them withwe will happily listen to it. I repeat; none of this is set in stone. Issuing one Order in Council may set a framework, but it does not establish the whole picture. Consequential legislation will have to be implemented by this House if we cannot achieve restoration, or by a restored Assembly if we can.

Eddie McGrady: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. He is talking about an issue of fundamental importance. He must acknowledge, in the light of our recent history, that some of the measures that have been implemented through Orders in Council and other non-democratic methods have been opposed on a cross-community, cross-party basis. This has to be a black and white issue. Is he saying that if there is cross-community, cross-party opposition to a measure referred to the Assembly, such opposition will stop it in its tracks?

Peter Hain: I assume that the hon. Gentleman is thinking of the review of public administration and local government reorganisation, which is the only such example that I can think of, although he perhaps puts water charges into the same category. That policy, which has enormous merit, is supported by the business community, the voluntary sector and independent assessors. It provides for coterminosity in policing and health, thereby putting Northern Ireland in a unique position, compared with the rest of the UK, in delivering joined-up services locally. Of course, neither the hon. Gentleman nor his party is to blame for the current situation, but I should point out that, if people do not like the policies, they should get into power and take such decisions for themselves.

Rosie Cooper: I genuinely understand the situation in which Northern Ireland Members find themselves, but this is now a question of priorities. In carrying out their role as elected Northern Ireland Members, they need to consider the impact of following to its conclusion the zero-tolerance policy that we have heard about today. They really[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must sit down. We should not have interventions from a sedentary position, and it is certainly not advisable to respond to them.

Rosie Cooper: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The big issue is Northern Ireland Members' priorities. Do they want to do the job for which they were elected, such as dealing with education and local government reorganisation? These are really big questions for Northern Ireland and now, in modern parlance, it really is a question of deal or no deal.

Peter Hain: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend; she has expressed herself eloquently and forcefully. It has been suggested that there is overwhelming or near total opposition to the education reforms, but in fact, there is strong support for them, including from those elected to this House who take their seats. So people should not assume that we are riding roughshod over Northern Ireland opinion by implementing this policy. One section of opinion opposes such education reforms, but anotherit includes professionals, educationists, teachers and othersis strongly in favour.

Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. Will he clarify one small point? This new creaturethe completely new Assembly that the Bill sets upcould well be christened a talking shop. No matter what resolution or motion is agreed by it, all that it can do before restorationif such an order is ever madeis to discuss and talk until it is blue in the face. It has no decision-making powers whatsoever. Would the Secretary of State care to confirm that?

Peter Hain: No, I am afraid that I cannot. Its task is to restore the Executive, which it can do on day one, two, three or four, if it chooses. On the contrary, it has a solemn task of the highest importance: to achieve restoration.

William McCrea: rose

Peter Hain: I realise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have been speaking for a long time. That is because I have taken a lot of interventions. I am being pressed to take another; then, I really must make some progress.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I reinforce the point that the Secretary of State has made. A number of hon. and right hon. Members intend to seek to catch my eye; however, the time that they will have to speak is being reduced with every single intervention.

William McCrea: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Surely the financial black hole to which he referred earlier should not be filled through water charges. The fact is that the lack of infrastructure in the past 30 years was caused by the need to spend money on dealing with 30 years of IRA terrorism. The people should not be penalised.

Peter Hain: I put it to the hon. Gentleman absolutely straightforwardlyI hope that he will not take this in the wrong spiritthat where I and my constituents pay, on average, 1,300 a year in water charges and household council tax, he and his constituents pay some 600 a year in water contributions and household rates. So they are paying less than half what Scottish, Welsh and English Members and their constituents are paying. That is not sustainable if we want a proper, modern water and sewerage system in Northern Ireland that meets future needs and provides clean water and beaches. Moreover, if we want to release up 200 million-worth of spending to put into health and education, we need to raise more finance locally. The same point applies to the rates. That gapNorthern Ireland's households contributing less than half what Great Britain's households contributeis simply not defensible or sustainable.
	The key purpose of the Assembly is to pave the way for a devolved Executive, by electing a First Minister and Deputy First Minister; and then running the d'Hondt process. When all concerned have affirmed the pledge of office, including the commitment to exclusively democratic and peaceful means, the Bill requires me immediately to make an order restoring devolved government. The newly selected Executive would take up office, and the Assembly would have all its powers and responsibilities restored. The direct rule powers would come to an end; indeed, they would be repealed from the statute book.
	If restoration is achieved, we have provided that the Assembly's life should be prolonged for a year beyond May 2007, when an election was due. That is not the sort of step to be taken lightly, but it makes no sense, having laboured for years to restore an Executive, for its members then immediately to have to focus on pre-election positioning and campaigning, instead of focusing on the difficult process of self-government. It is going to be hard enough to build the trust and experience necessary to make the new arrangements work without electoral politics intervening.
	Of course, some parties are seeking changes to the arrangements under which devolution would operate. Much the best way forward would be for the parties in the Assembly to resolve those issues among themselves. Under devolution, the Assembly achieved remarkable things with all the parties working together, and in that spirit I am sure that we could overcome the remaining obstacles. We as a Government of course stand ready to contribute to discussions on those issues, and to give effect to the outcome. But accommodation among all the parties is what matters.
	If we do not get an Executive by 24 November, the Bill is absolutely unequivocal. The Assembly Members will go home, the May 2007 elections will not take place and, from 24 November, the Assembly Members will receive no pay, though the powers governing that already exist and do not depend on the Bill. We do not believe that it would be justified to pay Members of the Legislative Assembly any resettlement allowance. After three and a half years on generous pay without having been able to carry out their role, the public would not accept MLAs receiving golden handshakes.
	It has been put to me that MLAs could face some unavoidable costs, arising after the November deadline, associated with the closure of their offices and the release of their staff. There are existing arrangements for those to be reimbursed strictly on the basis of receipted claims. Suggestions that that means a 16,000 retirement package in the back pocket of every MLA are completely misguided. Frankly, however, I am not particularly sympathetic to even those winding up arrangements for office rent, staff and so on. The public are heartily sick of taxpayers' money being doled out to MLAs who will not do their jobs by working together like all other elected politicians across the world.

Nigel Dodds: Does the Secretary of State agree that the people of Northern Ireland are also heartily sick of the Government doling out money to Sinn Fein MPs who do not do their work in this House? We are told that they do their constituency work, as do MLAs, but this Government saw fit to introduce payments of hundreds of millions of pounds to Sinn Fein MPs on the same basis as payments to Assembly Members. Is not he being utterly hypocritical?

Peter Hain: I am not sure that hundreds of millions of pounds is anything like correct. The hon. Gentleman may want to check the accuracy of that assertion. He surely is not suggesting that the fact that Sinn Fein Members have not taken their seats, which I regretalthough they continue to do their constituency workin this House, which has sat for centuries, is the same as Members of the Legislative Assembly refusing to sit together and do the job for which they were elected.
	If we failed by 24 November, we would then carry forward the government of Northern Ireland. Of course an Assembly and Executive could at some future year be restored under the original Good Friday arrangements; that is to say, without the fresh basis for which this Bill provides. In that event, the Bill enables an Assembly election to be called later, subject to an affirmative vote in Parliament. But I do not want, and I am not anticipating, failure. I believe that matters need not and will not come to that.
	Devolution was a success before. Not only does it tap local resource and initiative in a way that direct rule never can, but it embodies the spirit of working together that is necessary for Northern Ireland to find a truly successful place in a changing world. It says to people at home and beyond that Northern Ireland has moved on, is meeting the challenges of the past on the basis set out in the agreement, and is determined to confront the challenges of the future, for the good of all its people.
	I want to stress again that 24 November is for real. The past practice whereby deadlines come and deadlines go is over. This is a time for decision. Either the curtain comes down on the process since 1998 or it rises on a new future. We hope that the parties will have the courage and vision to make sure it rises. They will make their fateful decision, bearing in mindI hopewhat has been achieved in Northern Ireland's politics these past years. That is not democratic perfection; of course not. It is not even normal, modern, democratic politics of the kind operating elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
	But it is, nevertheless, the foundations of a new democratic culture embracing everyone from Unionists to nationalists, from loyalists to republicans. It is a democratic culture to replace violence, never before achieved in Northern Ireland's tangled and tortured history. That democratic culture is a precious asset. Its foundations have been carefully assembled over the years of painful negotiation, political sacrifices, ups and downs and periodic crises. It is for Northern Ireland's parties now to decide whether they wish themselves to close down that political culture and write off a political generation. I hope that they will not do so, but instead build on it by having the courage to work together and share power together.

David Lidington: We shall support the Bill. If there is a Division this evening, it is my intention to vote with the Government on Second Reading. We can explore tomorrow, I hope, the detailed questions that we may have. The Secretary of State will know from speeches that I have made on other occasions in the House that we have had criticisms of the way the Government have handled aspects of the political process in Northern Ireland over recent years. However, I believe that this is one of those occasions when the Opposition should give the Government the benefit of the doubt, although I thinkI hope that I am wrongthat they are being optimistic in setting such a tight deadline for the forthcoming negotiations between the parties and the two Governments. We very much hope that the Government's initiative succeeds.
	It is the belief of my party that it is in the interests of everybody in Northern Ireland that devolution should be restored and we accept, too, that that has to be done on the basis of power sharing. We cannot go back to a time in which 45 per cent. of the population was permanently and irrevocably shut out from any say in the government of Northern Ireland.

Lady Hermon: How is it that Her Majesty's loyal Opposition can support a Bill that gives the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland such an enormous amount of increased executive power, including the power to amend any Act of Parliament whatever?

David Lidington: The hon. Lady has put her finger on one of the aspects that I hope the House will probe in detail in the debates that we will have tomorrow. One of the points on which I will then seek clarification from the Minister of State is whether the enabling powers to which the hon. Lady has just referred will be carefully circumscribed by reference to the purposes of this particular Bill or whether they could, as she suggests, have a wider application than the House would wish to provide.
	I can understand why the Government have chosen the type of language that they have, but I am a little critical of their approach to the debate on the Bill. It is presented too much as if there were a neat symmetry between republicans and Unionists. The Secretary of State was right when he said at the beginning of his speech that what is stopping devolution happening is the brute fact that the majority of the Unionist communityand, for that matter, many nationalistsin Northern Ireland do not yet feel able to trust Sinn Fein and the IRA when they say that they have put terrorism permanently behind them.
	I would have greater sympathy with the Secretary of State's later argumentthat the different political parties in Northern Ireland should, in effect, shape up, come together and reach an agreementif that involved only the sort of sincere yet profound differences that exist between his party and mine, for example, or between the Unionist parties and the SDLP. Such differences come down to questions about how policy should be decided in an agreed constitutional, democratic and peaceful context. However, the reality is different: the Unionist community is being asked to engage with, trust and go into government alongside members of a political movement that for decades has been dedicated to the destruction of the political entity that is Northern Ireland. Moreover, that movement has tried to change the constitutional status through violence and, at times, acts of indiscriminate slaughter rather than through the ballot box. We are being asked to make that leap of faith at a time when the republican movement is still led by men who in the past have authorised or taken part in acts of violence that have caused grievous loss of life and injury among people from all communities and on both sides of the water.
	The process of coming to terms with engaging with members of Sinn Fein has been difficult enough for my party, as we have lost friends and colleagues to terrorism. Some of my colleagues in the House of Lords and elsewhere in the Conservative party will bear the physical and mental scars for the rest of their lives. Others of my friends, including a fair number of current Members of this House, have had to live for months or years with the knowledge that they and perhaps their families were on an IRA list, and with the expectation that they could be threatened or attacked at any time.
	I can recall conversations with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) and with Lord Mawhinney in which they described how peculiar it was for them, as Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office, to sit down to negotiate with men who they knew for certain had been plotting their murder only a few months previously. I am not making a special plea on behalf of my party but, if members of the Conservative party have reason to be wary and cautious, that must be doubly and trebly the case for members of the Unionist parties. All hon. Members, irrespective of party allegiance, must understand how much we ask of our Unionist colleagues when we argue that a political agreement has to include Sinn Fein.

Gregory Campbell: My hon. Friend has described, movingly and poignantly, the difficulties faced by his party and the rest of us. Although it is exceptionally difficult for many of us to reconcile ourselves with what has been done in the past, our concern is that there may be plans for similar things to happen again, in both the present and the future. That is what we require certainty about.

David Lidington: I welcome that intervention, because the hon. Gentleman demonstrates that the DUP is prepared to look again at Sinn Fein's credentials. Without ever forgetting the grievous wrongs carried out by terrorists in the past, Unionism's political leaders are looking to the future and hoping for the profound change in republicans' intentions and motivations for which we all yearn.
	The Secretary of State and the IMC today have given us some evidence that we have real cause for hope, but I am not surprised that Unionists sometimes look askance at such things. We must remember that we are asking our colleagues in Northern Ireland to share power with Sinn Fein at a time when every political party in the Irish Republic still says that they are unfit to take part in a coalition in Dublin.
	The Provisional IRA has denied that it has taken part in or authorised recent acts of criminality. We hope that we can trust those words, but we cannot forget that we heard comparable denials after the Enniskillen bombing, the murder of Garda officer Jerry McCabe and numerous other terrorist incidents. It is difficult to drive those memories out of our minds.

Patrick Cormack: My hon. Friend is making a typically thoughtful and excellent speech, and he has touched on the refusal by parties in the Republic to work with Sinn Fein. However, is it not worth putting it on the record that that party, as well as having a questionable past and present, also has political principles that are inimical to anyone who sits in this House of Commons?

David Lidington: My hon. Friend is right. We are looking for more than words: we need evidence that will allow us to believe that Sinn Fein is genuinely and permanently committed to achieving Irish unity exclusively through democratic politics rather than violence or intimidation. I disagree with that objective profoundly, but it is one that is perfectly legitimate for any politician in these islands.
	In our debates on these matters, and in exchanges in recent months at Northern Ireland questions, we have talked about the steps that the republican movement has taken in the past few years. However, we should not neglect to acknowledge the important moves that Unionism has also made, and I especially welcome what the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) has said in two recent speeches. In New York on 6 April and in Killarney the other day, the hon. Gentleman made clear his party's commitment to work for a just and enduring settlement. In Killarney, he said that, although Unionists would oppose those who wished to press for a united Ireland with every democratic and peaceful means at their disposal, he respected the right of democrats who sought that objective to pursue their political ideals as long as they did so through the ballot box and not through violence.
	I hope that all hon. Members share that visionthat, in the end, we will find a way to a political settlement that would allow, as the hon. Member for Belfast, East said,
	the sons and daughters of the Planter and the Gael . . . to share the land of their birth and live together in peace.
	However, if we are to approach that objective, we need clear and firm evidence that republicans' commitment to democracy is neither tactical nor another lull in the armed struggle such as occurred in the 1950s. We need evidence that it is a permanent and irreversible break from the history of terrorism and criminality.
	As the Secretary of State said in his speech, today's report from the IMC undoubtedly gives real cause for hope. It does, in my view, indicate important further steps by the republican movement away from violence and crime and towards exclusively democratic politics. To my mind, one of the most important conclusions reached by the IMC was that which it published in paragraph 2.15 of its report, when it concluded:
	There has now been a substantial erosion in PIRA's capacity to return to a military campaign without a significant period of build-up, which in any event we do not believe they have any intentions of doing.
	Evidence of that type, that suggests that we are moving away from the situation where, in the words of the Taoiseach, the IRA was able to turn violence on and off like a tap, should be warmly welcomed.
	I have sometimes been criticised for focusing to a huge extent on republicans. I do not apologise for doing that because the republicans, unlike the parties linked to the loyalist paramilitary groups, will have Ministersindeed, a significant number of Ministersin any reconstituted Executive, but it is fair to say that we do need to acknowledge that the continued existence and activity of loyalist gangs not only gives the IRA a fig leaf for remaining organised but is the cause of genuine fear amongst the Roman Catholic and nationalist people of Northern Ireland.

William McCrea: Before the hon. Gentleman moves away from republican terrorism, may I ask him a question? The Continuity IRA is very much evident and its threat is certainly not below the surface but very evident at this time. The Real IRA is also very active, and the IMC report acknowledges that there are senior members of the IRA who are also active, whether they have been hiding guns or whether they have been involved in criminality. May I ask the hon. Gentleman, is this stating really that PIRA has lost control of the republican movement?

David Lidington: That is exactly one of those questions that we shall have to continue to observe very carefully in forthcoming weeks and months. I have been told in my conversations with senior police officers and others that they believe that the leadership of Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA still retains control over, leadership of, the great bulk of those who have been followers of the Provisional IRA in the past, and there has been some splintering, but we are not yet facing the kind of split in republicanism that we saw in the conflict between the provisionals and the officials in the late 1960s. I will be guided very much by the information that I get from police officers, Army officers and other such sources about what is happening within republicanism.
	I was speaking a moment ago about loyalist paramilitaries. I wanted to say to the Secretary of State that he has our support in his efforts to end loyalist violence, and I support without reservation his call to the loyalist paramilitaries to stop the crime and the violence in which they are engaged and to decommission their weapons. I would only addI am sure that the Secretary of State agrees with methat the police and the Assets Recovery Agency should continue to pursue remorselessly those paramilitaries who defy the law rather than abandon lawlessness in favour of democracy.
	But the focus has to be primarily on republicanism because of the strength of the electoral support that Sinn Fein now enjoys, and it seems to me that there are three questions that have to be asked about republicanism. The first is whether the provisionals as an organised movement have ceased all involvement in crime. While the IMC has certainly reported progress, the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea) and others, in interventions, have also pointed to those paragraphs in the report that indicate that other members of the provisional movement, including some senior members, are still engaged in criminality.
	The Secretary of State made quite a lot of the difference between the approach of the leadership and the actions of a minority of members of the Provisional IRA. I accept the distinction as a matter of principle, but I think it is fair for all of us to challenge republicans by saying, If you are sincere in your commitment to break finally and irrevocably with crime, we want to know that you are taking action to stop those rogue elements. And that does not mean the sort of alternative disciplinary methods that we have seen far too much of from paramilitary groups on both sides; it means a willingness to engage with the legitimate criminal justice system and police force so that those renegades can be brought to justice and further crimes prevented.
	So the second challenge to the provisionals is to support the police and the courts and the rule of law. I did note that the IMC, in paragraph 2.19, states that it believes that the leadership of the provisionals
	has accepted the need to engage in policing if it is to achieve its aim of devolution of policing and justice,
	but the IMC continues:
	The issue is still very controversial on the ground and has not been resolved to date within PIRA despite robust discussion.
	I think we need to move beyond robust discussion and we need to be clear that Sinn Fein, if it is to be treated equally as a democratic party, is accepting the norms of democratic discourse, and that support for the police and the rule of law is not some optional extrait is integral to accepting the rules of the democratic game.
	I took a measure of encouragement from the IMC's comment in paragraph 2.20, when it quoted Mr. Martin McGuinness as saying, in the context of a lorry hijack in March in the Irish Republic, that
	anyone involved in activity of this nature, no matter what political party they support, needs to be arrested, charged and brought to court before a jury of their peers.
	Those are good words. Let us now see those words being translated into action by Sinn Fein leaders to say to their followers that it is time for them to give evidence of crime to the police and the other parts of the criminal justice system.

Sammy Wilson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the crime referred to in paragraph 2.20 was a crime executed in the Irish Republic, and that it would be very good to see Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams making the same comments for crimes that are committed in Northern Ireland and encouraging the police there and encouraging people to appear before the courts there?

David Lidington: I agree entirely.
	The third challenge, which is a challenge not only for the republican movement but for us in the House, is to answer the question, what is the status of the Provisional IRA? The IMC report today talks still about the barbarous practice of exiling continuing to be enforced by both republican and loyalist paramilitary groups. It talks about paramilitary groupsthe IRA as well as loyalistsacting as community disciplinarians, imposing their rule on nationalist or loyalist people, rather than allowing the rule of law to prevail. We hear the comments of the Irish Justice Minister, who wrote in the Sunday Independent on 26 March that the resources of the IRA
	are very substantial. They are available for the subversion of democracy.
	On 11 April, he told the Irish Independent that
	the IRA constitution continues to be treasonable and subversive.
	One cannot lightly ignore such statements.
	I would welcome it if the Provisional IRA really were turning itself into what the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) has referred to as an old boys association. I would not welcome the commemorative events of such a body, but it would be much better and easier to live with than the violent paramilitary conspiracy that the Provisional IRA has been for so many years. At some stage, we in the House will have to work out how we think of the IRA. On several occasions, the Secretary of State has said that the Provisional IRA is no longer a terrorist threat. To be fair, the IMC bears him out and I am prepared to accept its word, but we are left with an odd situation in which an organisation is apparently no longer deemed to be a terrorist threat but membership of it is still a criminal offence both in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.
	If at some stage the Government said that they were considering de-proscribing the IRA because there was clear evidence that it had utterly changed in character, I could understand it, although I should want to be persuaded. But to say on the one hand that the organisation can be trusted and that it is not a terrorist threat, yet on the other that it is still a criminal offence to belong to it strikes me as a bit inconsistent and ambiguous. We must get straight in our minds how we are to treat the organisation in the future.

Patrick Cormack: Is not there a simple answer? For Sinn Fein to disband the IRA.

David Lidington: Alongside support for the police, disbandment of the IRA is probably the single gesture that would make it easier for Unionists to accept the fact that the organisation had changed.

Peter Robinson: Is not it true that Unionists would be bereft of an argument if it was ever believed that they were relying on that? They could hardly accuse the organisation of being complicit in criminality and paramilitary activity if it no longer existed.

David Lidington: Indeed. If the war is over, what purpose does the army serve? That is a challenge to which I have yet to hear a clear or persuasive answer from representatives of Sinn Fein.
	I am conscious that Northern Ireland Members want to speak

Patrick Cormack: And others.

David Lidington: Indeed.
	I conclude by wishing the Government and the Northern Ireland parties well in the negotiations that they are about to undertake. I very much hope that we reach agreement about devolution and the restoration of the institutions with full powers, but I am clear in my own mind that that can and should come about only if we have a commitment by all parties, especially Sinn Fein, to a culture of lawfulness and justice. If everybody is to be accepted as an equal partner in the democratic future of Northern Ireland, all have to play by the same democratic rules.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has placed a 15-minute limit on all Back-Bench speeches, which applies from now.

Paul Murphy: The debate has been interesting so far and I am sure it will continue to be so.
	I certainly welcome the Independent Monitoring Commission publication today; there is still a long way to go, but with reference to the IRA, it indicates that progress has been made. I also welcome the statement made in Killarney this week by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) when he and his colleagues addressed a meeting of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body, which I co-chair. His statement was excellent, especially in terms of his party's willingness to share power with nationalists in Northern Ireland.
	I welcome the Bill in so far as it restores the Assembly. It is important that all Members understand, as Members who have been involved in Northern Ireland affairs over the years do, that a crucial part of the Good Friday agreementindeed of any agreement to bring stability and harmony to politics in Northern Irelandmust have at its heart the principle that people in Northern Ireland should be governed by people from Northern Ireland in a special way, with shared responsibility among the different communities.
	We are not just talking about the business of devolution. After all, there is devolution in Wales and Scotland. Indeed, it is ironic that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who is more of a devolutionist than I, has rightly expanded devolution in Wales, yet if, unhappily, the latter part of the Bill has to be enacted, it would bring the end of devolution in Northern Ireland. The business of devolution is working togethersharing government and making decisions together. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) pointed out how difficult that is, inevitably, among parties with fundamentally different political views. It goes beyond that: I would find great difficulty in forming a coalition with the Conservative party, the Liberal Democrats and other parties in the House, but it is a thousand times more difficult for parties in Northern Ireland.
	The continuance of direct rule would be disastrous for Northern Ireland and for the political process. I was a direct Minister for five yearstwo years as a Finance Minister and three as Secretary of State dealing with devolved issues. I was deeply uncomfortable in the role of direct rule Minister, although not in dealing with the politics and security of Northern Ireland. My party does not get a single vote in Northern Ireland although the Conservative party wins a number of votes, but apart from the Northern Ireland parties no party has a mandate there, so it is hard for direct rule Ministers to square their conscience when taking difficult decisions on behalf of people from whom they have received no mandate. That is coupled with the ludicrously inadequate method for parliamentary scrutiny of hugely important issues that affect the 1.7 million people in Northern Ireland.
	The Assembly will not be the one set up by the agreement, but I am happy that it will be restored if the Bill is passed, because it will be able to discuss individual issues in Northern Ireland. I believe that it is right for my right hon. Friend to listen exceedingly carefully to those 108 Members elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly on the issues that they want to debate.
	Some issues, such as water rates, rates more widely and other financial matters, remain very controversial in Northern Ireland and every Administration, whether by direct rule or through a restored Assembly, would have to confront them. Some in Northern Ireland, of course, would rather like direct rule Ministers to take the difficult decisions, so that they would not then have to take them themselves.
	Other issues, such as education, are not in that category. Martin McGuiness started the ball rolling when he announced the end of the transfer test, or 11-plus. I had to continue the debate over that issue when I was Secretary of State, and my right hon. Friend is doing it now. It is, of course, an issue that divides people in Northern Ireland. Local government reform is a rather different issue again, in that all parties save one are opposed to it. I repeat to my right hon. Friend that on the highly sensitive issues that will impact on the politics and political geography of Northern Ireland for decades to come, he should listen very carefully to what is said in the intervening weeksbetween now and, I hope, the summer, but possibly 24 November.
	We must remember that Northern Ireland Assembly Members were democratically elected. I was present during the election and attended the count. Those Members have a representative role even if they have not yet gathered as an Assembly. The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) mentioned earlier that Sinn Fein Members do notthey do not want totake up their seats in this place, but they still have a representative role, as do Assembly Members. I hope that my right hon. Friend and his Ministers will listen very carefully.
	Another problem facing Northern Ireland is that people can become comfortable with direct rule, which is a grave danger. Every person in Northern Ireland who can exercise the franchise should think carefully about the loss of devolution and what it will mean to themand to their grandchildren. It is a hugely significant issue. I would also say to my Front-Bench colleagues that Ministers must not become too comfortable with direct rule either. It is easy to slip into that, as I have often seen. It is easy to start thinking that we are governing parts of the United Kingdom over which we have some sort of mandatebut we do not. We whether as Ministers, as parliamentarians or as members of the public in Northern Irelandmust not become comfortable with direct rule. It is not the answer, but the antithesis of the answer.
	Salaries and the endgame are further issues. I would love to hear my right hon. Friend say that the aim over the weeks and months ahead is to succeed. The message from the Government and from this place should be that in the weeks ahead, between now and the summer or November, the key purpose is to ensure that sufficient confidence and trust is built up between the parties in Northern Ireland. The Governments in Dublin and London should help to ensure an end to direct rule and the restoration of the Irish Executive. That has to be the central message. If it does not work, if direct rule continues and devolution is not restored, it will be a great disaster for the people of Northern Ireland. Ultimately, everyone would see a diminution in their livesnot just the democratic deficit, but a diminution in people's proper entitlement to be governed by people who live in Northern Ireland for whom they have voted.
	I understand the frustration of Governments and the political parties in Northern Ireland and I understand the impatience of people living in Northern Ireland. However, when we talk about the great progress made there in recent times, everyone must understand that that is not just a clich. Enormous progress has been made there politically, socially and economically. It has not come by accident, but through hard work and commitment. It has also taken some time: the time between the signing of the Good Friday agreement and reaching agreement on it was years, not months, but we must not lose patience. We must always have the ultimate aim or the big picture in view. This is about not just the absence of violence on the streets of Northern Ireland, and prosperity in that placealthough those are highly significantbut the hugely important issue of people governing themselves.
	Yes, it is probably right that the salariesthe reduced salaries, as people did not receive full onesshould come to an end. They cannot continue to be paid for ever. However, hon. Members should reflect on the fact that, in the intervening years between the referendum and the establishment of the Northern Ireland Assembly, a political class has developed. It includes a generation of politicians108 Members, but also others who work for them or who serve in local governmentand it is right to say that the political class has to be maintained. If all this does not workI hope and pray that it willmy hope is that on the eve of my 58th birthday, which will be on 25 November this year, we will not see the collapse of those institutions.

Nigel Dodds: A nice birthday present.

Paul Murphy: It certainly would be one of the best birthday presents that I could have if we saw the restoration of the Assembly and the Executive, whereby the people of Northern Ireland could rightly be governed by themselves. The absence of that success, however, is too dire to contemplate. It is too difficult to get our political heads around that. It would mean the destruction of devolution, the continuance of direct rule and the complete collapse of the Good Friday agreement or any other agreement that sought to bring about power sharing in Northern Ireland.
	I wish my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, his fellow Ministers and all the parties in Northern Ireland the very best in the months ahead. We are all hoping, praying and working hard to move in the right direction for the future.

Lembit �pik: I would like to thank the Secretary of State for introducing the Bill and for his inclusive approach to consultation about it. As we said in our response to his statement last week, we can give a general welcome to the Bill. We are pleased to see that there is now a very clear target, set down in legislation, for the restoration of the Assembly.
	I think that we would all agree with the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) that Northern Ireland is best served by local politicians taking local decisions on local issues. It is right and proper that those who take responsibility for health care, education, the provision of public transport and the stimulation of the economy in Northern Irelandto name just a fewshould be directly accountable to the people who will be affected by their decisions. There could not be a bigger contrast between how decisions are taken nowin a fairly undemocratic fashion, I believe, through Orders in Counciland how they will be taken when the Assembly is fully functioning. Liberal Democrats very much hope that this Government initiative will succeed in restoring devolved government to Northern Ireland and that the Assembly will become a secure and permanent institution, not dogged by the instabilities of the past few years.
	There are still huge difficulties to overcome before we reach the point of restoring devolved government. Hon. Members have already alluded to them so I do not intend to repeat them, but to make some new points. First, the Government must not shy away from their responsibilities in ensuring that those difficulties are faced up to and dealt with in the coming weeks and months. There remains a fundamental and deep mistrust between the political parties, which cannot be dealt with on a quick-fix basis. Will the Secretary of State therefore reaffirm his commitment to instituting inclusive, round-table talks? We have stated many times our belief that that is the only way in which a lasting settlement can be achievedwhen all the political parties in Northern Ireland are involved in the negotiations.
	Far too often, Northern Ireland parties have been separated, so Ministers do side deals with one or two parties. Each of those initiatives has ultimately failed. The Government cannot afford to make that mistake again and squander the good willto an extent, they have already done soof some pro-devolution parties that Ministers and successive Secretaries of State have taken for granted. If the Government want to achieve a lasting settlement, they must ensure that all the parties work together to achieve it; otherwise we will find ourselves with another temporary deal that will ultimately come unstuck.
	I also very much welcome the statement by the IRA in July last year and its subsequent act of decommissioning. While many were sceptical about those words, I think that the IMC has pretty much confirmed that significant action has taken place in that regard. The reports that have followed have served to reassure Liberal Democrat Members at least that the terrorist threat from the IRA is now massively diminished. However, we still feel quite troubled about the IRA's continued involvement with organised crime. That has been noted once again by all hon. Members who have spoken so farthe Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State have made that pointand it is something that we simply cannot ignore.
	The Organised Crime Task Force has done some very good work, but it seems to have scarcely scratched the surface. Does the Minister agree that if Sinn Fein were to join the Policing Board and unequivocally support the police and the criminal justice system, the people of Northern Ireland would be greatly assisted in believing the IRA and Sinn Fein statements that they oppose any form of criminal behaviour? That has been an ongoing inconsistency, and Sinn Fein must live up to its responsibilities. Although I disagreed with some of the changes made to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, many of them were expressly introduced to make it easier for republicans to support mainstream policing and the rule of law.
	I think that Sinn Fein is in deficit in its responsibilities towards the police. One of the very important actions that Sinn Fein can now take is positively to encourage republicans and Catholics to join the police, and it has been rather slow in that regard. However, on a very positive note, the IMC report seems to show that intelligence gathering has diminished, and there seems to be no coherent paramilitary intelligence-gathering activity of the type that the paramilitaries used to undertake to inform their terrorist atrocities. That is one of the most important findings in the IMC report, and it is one of the reasons why I am a little bit more optimistic that the process that the Bill puts in train can be successful.
	I hope that some of the sceptics on the loyalist Benches will regard the abandonment of a significant part of the intelligence-gathering exercise as a very significant, albeit circumstantial, straw in the wind to show that there has been a permanent shift in Sinn Fein's ability to tool up and return to paramilitary violence as before. Indeed, the 10th report underlines the belief that the IRA is now much further from the ability to conduct organised, politically motivated paramilitary events than in the past.
	Do the Government accept that the changes to the structures and working of the Good Friday agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to ensure that design flaws and general problems are properly addressed should form part of the current negotiation process? The Government will recall the difficulties posed by the system of designations, for example. The Secretary of State has said nothing about that today. So will the Minister reassure the House that if such changes are deemed necessary before the Assembly can elect a First Minister and Deputy First Minister, adequate time will be available for the House to debate them?
	I turn now to the specifics of the Bill. I have a few questions for the Minister, and the Secretary of State knowsthe Minister probably does, toothat the Liberal Democrats have already tabled some amendments by which we hope to have a full and considered discussion in Committee tomorrow on those various points.
	Our primary concern is about the Assembly's ability to act in relation to issues on which the Government legislated during suspension. Can the Minister confirm whether the Assembly will be able to amend or repeal any Order in Council passed in Westminster since October 2002? Surely, once the Assembly resumes responsibility for transferred matters, it is up to the Assembly to determine policy on all those matters. Therefore, I should like the Minister to reassure us that the Assembly can reverse, by means of an Act of the Assembly, any policy decision that the Government have made and brought into operation during suspension. That point has been made already by Members on the SDLP Bench.
	I am cognisant of the fact that the hugely unpopular changes to student funding that the Government forced through using the Order-in-Council process, despite the unanimous opposition of every political party in Northern Ireland, is a classic example of the kind of thing that a fully operating reconstituted Assembly should be able to repeal. It is not good enough for the Minister simply to say, Well, I'd like to see where the money will come from. That is not the answer that we are looking for; we want to know whether, in principle, the Assembly has the right to make those changes. After all the bonhomie and positive consensus seeking by the Government, it would be extraordinarily undemocratic if they sought to scotch the Assembly's opportunity to repeal something that was unanimously opposed when it was introduced in the first place.

Lady Hermon: Just to assist the hon. Gentleman, who, unfortunately, has pledged his support for the Bill, let me point out that it is written in black and white in schedule 2 that
	No instrument made during any period of suspension shall be liable to annulment or capable of being revoked in pursuance of a resolution, motion or address of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Lembit �pik: That is why I asked the question. Surely that should not be the case. If it is the casethis is why I want to press the Minister to give a reasoned response on Second Readingthe Government are, in essence, excluding a reconstituted Assembly from making some very important decisions on a whole raft of issues. One of my increasing irritations with the Government is their obsession with forcing through many decisions in a very short time, when it simply is not necessary to force the pace of Northern Ireland legislation at that rate. The Minister and his colleagues have been wholly unable to justify why decisions of such importance must be taken here and now. If they are so confident that the process will work, they can wait eight monthsor perhaps not so longto let the Assembly do its business.
	To press the point that the hon. Lady makes, how does the Minister expect to get the good will of Northern Ireland parties if he really means that the Assembly should be explicitly excluded by the legislation from altering decisions that, in the judgment of its 108 democratically elected Members, are the wrong answers for Northern Ireland? Indeed, if the Minister cannot give a good response to that questionI am not holding my breathit will be one of the important topics of discussion tomorrow.
	I ask the Minister to reconsider whether the Government are willing to put on hold some of the more controversial policy decisions that they are proposing to put before Parliament between now and the deadline of 24 November 2006. I heard what the Secretary of State had to say about that, but what greater incentive could there be to focus the minds of the people whom they are trying to persuade than to ensure that everything is to play for until 24 November? Obviously, there is a stick-and-carrot approach, but it is diminished by the fact that the Government seem willing to make decisions that are not too time-sensitive now, when they should be giving everyone the clear space to focus on reconstituting the Assembly.
	We agree with the Government that if a restoration order is made before the deadline set out in the Bill, it makes sense to postpone the date of the next Assembly election until May 2008. We agree with the analysis that that would give the Assembly time to bed down and tackle some of the very real issues that face Northern Ireland before the Assembly is devolved and the parties must face the electorate again. In that context, the breathing space seems sensible.
	I am pleased to see that a firm date has been proposed in the Bill. The Secretary of State will know that the Liberal Democrats are suspicious of the setting of election dates by order. In fact, we feel that we were somewhat duped by the Government on a previous occasion, when they assured us that they were going to make one change, and then made another change. We are pleased that the merits of such a proposal can be discussed and debated before the whole House.
	We are also willing to accept the provision that would allow the Secretary of State to set an election date in the future if the Assembly is not restored in the autumn. Initially, I was not so sure about that. I hope that there is no need for that provision. I accept that the Government's reasoning is sound, in the sense that there should be the ability to recall the Assembly and hold an election at some time in the future, even if in the short term things do not work out.
	My next point is about deadlines. I have watched deadlines come and go, and I have often seen the Government promising that there will be no plan B and then capitulating at the last minute all the same. That is one of the reasons why, in the months ahead, the Government may have some trouble making people really believe that the Secretary of State will be true to his word and pull the plug on the proposals at midnight on 24 November. To that extent, it is really important that everybody be given a practical assurancereflected not just in the Government's words, but in their actionsso that we can see that the deadline is for real.
	The conditions in clause 2 are very clear. There is no question but that they are as close to objective as can be achieved, but I still harbour a concern that, if things are progressing slowly on 22 or 23 November, we will see some kind of order, or a quick piece of legislation, going through the House to provide more breathing space. I would be interested to know what the Minister can give by way of reassurance. The Government have created a rod for their own back by being so expedient in the past with deadlines that we were told were final, but turned out to be nothing of the sort.
	We also hope that in Committee, the Government will be able to give us a clear and detailed explanation of the purpose of each of the clauses in this short Bill, and how they envisage them being used, so that there can be no ambiguity or attempted reinterpretation either by the parties in Northern Ireland or, more likely, by Ministers, when they feel that they have to start wriggling around the legislation. We have seen that before.
	I know that this does not please the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), but, all in all, we will support the Bill if

Lady Hermon: Not only did the hon. Gentleman not please me in his response to my first intervention, but I am sure that he will not please me in his response to my second. Am I correct in understanding that he has told the House that the Liberal Democrats now support, in a democracy, the shifting of the date of a scheduled election at the whim of the Secretary of State? Is that now the policya changed policy, a U-turnof the Liberal Democrats?

Lembit �pik: No, it is not. It is a judgment. The hon. Lady asked a serious question and I will give her a serious answer. That is exactly why I was dubious about this at the start. However, there is a specific reason why I can live with the change on this occasion. In practical terms, there simply would not be enough time for the Assembly to bed down. If the Assembly elections were to take place in May 2007, there would necessarily be an additional friction in the bedding-down process, because political parties would vie for advantage instead of working together to consolidate what will almost certainly be a fragile democratic environment as the Assembly seeks to work. I note that the hon. Lady feels very strongly about that, and she is perfectly entitled to hold that view, but I counsel her to consider the practicalities of forcing an election agenda on top of a fresh, re-established and perhaps slightly volatile Assembly so soon, with the previously scheduled election date.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that when I was a member of the Ulster Unionist party, the then leader of that party, the former Member for Upper Bann, begged the Secretary of State to postpone the election in May 2003 and then begged him again to postpone the election in November 2003. Thankfully, the Secretary of State did not give way on that occasion. It seems that the Ulster Unionist party has changed its policy on shifting election dates.

Lembit �pik: I remember making common cause with the Democratic Unionist party on that occasion, and saying that that was going to be a massive own goal for the Government. I think that the word most used at thetime was gerrymandering. It looked like gerrymandering to try to support the perceived allies of the Government's agenda at the time. I do not hold the hon. Member for North Down responsible for her former leader's decision, but it is important that we learn the lessons from that. If there is one absolutely certain reason not to change election dates, it is if the change is being made to try to manage or engineer a particular outcome.

Lady Hermon: rose

Lembit �pik: I will give way, but I hope that we do not go too far from the content of the Bill.

Lady Hermon: Just in case there is any confusion or doubt, I am a very poor lookalike for the former right hon. Member for Upper Bann. Reflecting on the point that the hon. Gentleman has made about the inconvenience, difficulty and pressure that an election might put on political parties, I must say, with the greatest respect to him, that elections are for the people to express their will[Hon. Members: Absolutely.] They are not for the convenience of political parties.

Lembit �pik: The hon. Lady makes her point, and other hon. Members make their points. On this occasion, we think that there is a point in changing the election date. The Government have paid the price for what they have tried to do in the past. I remember congratulating the Democratic Unionist party on running a very good election campaign and smiling to myself because I suspect that at the time, the outcome was exactly the opposite of what the Prime Minister had intended.
	The Bill is fairly short, but it has significant potential consequences. I want to highlight one very serious danger. If the Government do not succeed in re-establishing the Assembly, they must do something about how Northern Ireland is managed through direct rule. In the failure scenario, it would be utterly unacceptable for Orders in Council to be used to decide the future of 1.5 million people in Northern Ireland.
	The Minister knows how resentful many of us have becomeand not just about the overloaded business agenda, which the Government seem willing to impose gratuitously on those of us who do not have the benefit of the Northern Ireland Office preparing our briefings. The Minister will also know that this all-or-nothing approach towards profoundly important and constitutionally significant legislation in Northern Ireland is not democratic at all. To an extent, Ministers have already squandered much of the good will that we have tried to show in helping them to do their business, but if it looks as if we have not got an Assembly, we cannot carry on like this.
	I hope that the Minister will provide some kind of an indication, either by intervening or in his winding-up speech, that the Government will take a more inclusive and democratic approach than they have done so far.

David Hanson: The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to him and the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) to say that we are happy to look at the matter. The Government find the process of Orders in Council unsatisfactory on occasions, too.

Lembit �pik: I am delighted that we violently agree. Actions speak louder than words, and I hope that we can have those conversations in parallel with any negotiations that take place after the Bill is passed. If the Minister has good ideas on how we can make the process better, there is no reason why we should wait until 24 November to implement them, because we could start doing that now.
	I look forward to tomorrow's short Committee and Report stages

Patrick Cormack: At this rate we will still be here.

Lembit �pik: I look forward to hearing other speakers, too.
	More than anything, the Minister can be assured that we want a restored Assembly. I hopeperhaps I may even suggest this to the DUPthat there will be sufficient common cause in the interest of preventing the Government from running Northern Ireland like an old-fashioned Commonwealth outpost. Until we restore the Assembly, there is a significant risk that the Government will impose their will on many occasions, against the unanimous opposition of all politicians in Northern Ireland.

Menzies Campbell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I owe the House an unqualified apology. At Prime Minister's questions today, I put questions to the Prime Minister that were based on an alleged incident at a prison in Stockton-on-Tees. The information had been relayed to me by an apparently reliable source and I accepted it in good faith. I now understand that my information was inaccurate, and I apologise for any embarrassment or inconvenience that I might have caused. I have written to the Home Secretary himself to make an apology in such terms as I have indicated to the House. I understand that the convention of the House requires a Member to come to the Chamber as soon as possible when he or she realises that something of this kind might have taken place, and I have sought to do that. I repeat my apology to the House for inadvertently relying on information that has now been demonstrated to me to have been inaccurate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for coming to the Chamber as soon as he has to put the record straight and feels that that is characteristic of the way in which he conducts himself in the House.

Mark Durkan: Government Ministers know that we believe that the proposals for which the Bill provides do not go far enough. It is a matter of record that we wanted the British and Irish Governments to be firmer and to go further. We wanted a real restoration date so that parties knew that they were on a countdown to restoration, which would be the biggest possible reality conditioner. Of course, the Bill provides not for that, but for an Assembly that is not restored, but convened on a different basis. It provides for an Assembly that is almost legally distinct from that provided for in the agreement. We are told that the Assembly will not be a shadow Assembly, so it will not even be a shadow of its former self.
	We know that the rules of the gameI am not a golferare that the ball must be played where it lies. When we believe that the Governments have not gone far enough, we will take what is in front of us as far as possible in the direction of securing the full and proper implementation of the Good Friday agreement. We will test the Bill. We will also test the Assembly and its arrangements. We will test other parties in the Assembly and will no doubt be tested by other parties, too. When taking things forward as far as we can, we will not go down any cul-de-sacs or go off on excursions and diversions that only distract us from the real primary taskthe key jobof delivering what the people voted for when they voted for both the institutions of the Good Friday agreement and all the parties since then, because they voted for all the parties to take the powers available to them according to their mandate in the context of the institutions.
	Of course, the key question is whether the Bill offers a definite path to restoration, or simply a temporary, dead-end talking shop. Given what we have seen and heard to date, it might offer either. There could be a path to restoration because if the Assembly elects a First Minister and Deputy First Minister and runs d'Hondt, and if everyone takes the pledge of office, the Secretary of State, under the Bill, must restore the institutions. We would welcome that. We want those things to happen, so we will be there for the Assembly proceedings to try to make that happen.
	On the other hand, the Secretary of State has power to refer such other matters to the Assembly as he thinks fit. That was dealt with by the two Governments in a statement earlier this month and last week in Parliament by the Secretary of State, who said that the Government would take account of motions passed with cross-community support on matters such as water rates and the review of public administration. What confidence can parties or the public have in such variable indications from the Secretary of State, when the Government have consistently failed to respect the combined will of parties on a cross-community basis on water rates, industrial de-rating and the review of public administration? They ignore clear and manifest views outside the Assembly, and it appears that the Secretary of State has given himself and Ministers the right to continue to ignore such views, even within the Assembly as constituted by the Bill. It has not been clarified whether take account means abiding by the express cross-community will of the Assembly.
	We have tabled a probing amendment to give the temporary Assembly a power by cross-community vote to veto orders, effectively giving it the power of negative resolution on a cross-community basis. If the Secretary of State wants to encourage us to believe that we will have a meaningful and effective role in the Assembly, I look forward to his accepting our amendment. Earlier, he said that if the Assembly were not restored in November, proceedings would begin to wind it up. He said that allowances would be stopped, and referred to people being paid for not doing their job. He should remember that many Assembly Members did not cause suspension or choose it. Some of them even gave up better-paid jobs to take elected office, and they have lost out ever since. The Secretary of State does not impress anyone by talking in dismissive terms that many people find insulting.
	Some of us submitted proposals more than two years ago that would enable us to do a full job as a legislative assembly. We would oversee the work of Departments, control the budget and deal with legislation. We would not have direct rule. Even if parties would not form an Executive, local people would act as accountable Ministers. Our proposals would therefore enable us to do what we were elected to do and what we are paid to do. However, the Government and others made sure that that did not happen, so the wagging and pointing of fingers are not particularly helpful.
	I concur with the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) in taking issue with the postponement of elections. Bizarrely, only last month, the Secretary of State said that power was needed to bring the date of elections forward to cement progress. Now, however, he says that power is needed definitively to postpone the date of elections to cement progress. I have a funny feeling that, whatever happens, the Government will revisit the issue, because if the institutions are restored someone will engineer an election before May 2008, as the way in which the institutions work means that they will be in a position to do so.
	We do not believe that the timing of elections should be rejigged at will. Like others, we opposed the postponement of elections. We opposed the original four-week postponement in May 2003, and certainly the second, longer postponement. Others were loud in their opposition to postponement, but they are silent now. I wonder how far the new date reflects any other agreement or understanding that the Government now have.
	Restoration is the big challenge that we all face. As the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) reflected earlier, the important principle for all of us must be that we as elected representatives and as democrats share responsibility for governing our affairs now and into the future.
	In the previous experience of devolution, institutions worked. People had their doubts about whether the inclusive arrangements could work. People had their doubts about whether the need for cross-community support on matters as basic as budgets and programmes for government would work. It would be a tower of Babel, there would be gridlock and it would all fall apart. The fact is that it worked, even when not all Ministers were in the Executive, and so on.
	The Government and all parties in the House, including the Liberal Democrats, need to remember that there were no issues to do with the working of the institutions that caused suspension. Suspension did not come because of how strand 1 works, how strand 2 works or how strand 3 works. Suspension came because of issues outside the institutions.
	Parties and Governments are on a dangerous course if they are inviting people to go through a menu of preconditions relating to changes to the workings of the agreement as further preconditions for restoration. If the issues that caused suspension have been dealt with and are out of the way, we should be on course for restoration, but the idea that we are undertaking a pub crawl of preconditions to change this bit of the agreement and that bit of the agreement to satisfy the Democratic Unionist party mandate is a dangerous misadventure.
	I fully respect the DUP's mandate. I want the DUP to have everything to which it is entitled for its mandate under the Good Friday agreement, and that is a lot. I have never tried to deny the DUP what it is entitled to under the agreement. However, I will not accept the rest of us being denied what we are entitled to under the agreement. The DUP has rights under the Good Friday agreement. It does not have rights over the Good Friday agreement.
	With regard to changes in the workings of institutions, that can all happen in the context of restoration and the DUP will be in a very strong position, whether in reviewing the agreement or in a working Assembly, to help to oversee changes and adjustments in the workings of the institutions. Indeed, we, the Social Democratic and Labour party, have proposed many changes and adjustments in the working of the Assembly, the Executive and so on. There is a difference between making those adjustments in the context of working institutions when everyone has confidence in each other's position, and granting gratuitous changes to the agreement as a precondition for restoration.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Changing the resignation of the Deputy First Minister.

Mark Durkan: I never did it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members not to engage in obtrusive sedentary comments. It does not help the debate.

Mark Durkan: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	In his remarks the Secretary of State spoke of the prospect that would ensue if the current course did not work out. As he put it, the curtain comes down on the process since 1998. In a statement last week, he spoke of closing the book on devolution. The Government need to remember that in present circumstances and in what unfolds in the next few months, it could be in some people's interest to see the book closed on devolution or the curtain coming down on the process since 1998, if that allows them to say that the curtain has come down and the book has been closed on the Good Friday agreement.
	I am not sure that parties are as afraid of the suggestions from the Secretary of State as he might think they are. That outcome might suit the purposes of some parties. It is also clear that parties are not frightened by the prospect of a so-called alternative coming from the two Governments in that context. I am not sure that parties believe that the Governments will be able to muster much of an alternative at the end of the year, depending where the Prime Minister might be, as the Irish Government are on a count-down to elections. The search for a so-called alternative would lead only to confirmation in the eyes of some that the agreement had been abandoned or set aside. Such a situation might suit them. We might not have an agreement as a given. We might not have the restoration of the Assembly as a giventhe Government have made it clear that they do not think that it is a given. It might be that the only thing that we have in Northern Ireland as a given is seven super-councils. That will involve the balkanisation of Northern Ireland, which is repartition in waiting. There will be three green councils, three orange councils and Belfast, where there will be all to play for.
	When the Secretary of State talks about the possibility of writing off a political generation later this year, he must be careful, because we could end up with a choice that no one has advocated, no one has asked for and nobody has voted for. Over the coming months, we face a choice between two futures. People voted for one of those futures, which will respect and accommodate the mandate of everyone, including people who did not vote for that dispensation. If one listens to the Government, we face the reality of seven super-councils, in which case parties will adapt to the situation and seek to build up their power bases in a divided and politically sterile Northern Ireland.

Ian Paisley: This Bill provides for an Assembly in Northern Ireland, and my party and I welcome that. This proposal is in line with our suggestion, which we put to the Government earlier this year, that there should be a phased approach to the return to devolution, and I believe that the Bill presents a chance for that to take place. We have made it clear that the conditions are not yet right to see the restoration of the Executive, but we believe that there is important work that the Assembly can do. I welcome today's contribution by the Leader of the Opposition on IRA-Sinn Fein.
	The Northern Ireland people will not have full time in this debate because of the regulations of this House. I am allowed to speak for only 15 minutes, although I am the leader of a party that has nine Members. That is the fairness of this great democratic body that I am addressing.
	We have made it clear that the conditions are not right to see the restoration of the Executive, but there is important work for the Assembly to do, and this Bill can help us to do that work. Such work can contribute to the conditions which could see the Assembly-proper returning, and it could also give the Members of the Legislative Assembly an enhanced role in helping to shape decisions in Northern Ireland. I do not think that MLAs should be despised, because they made a case to the electorate and some of them put their lives on the line to get elected. I salute them for their work, particularly in local areas in Northern Ireland.
	Many areas of Government policy in Northern Ireland urgently require attention. The direct rule Administration is on the wrong track on some important issues. In some areas, I believe that it is possible to achieve a measure of consensus between all the local parties, which will make it difficult for the Government to ignore our views. However, the big question is whether the Government ignore or accept our views. They have been lecturing us on our ethical standing, but what is their ethical standing? If a majority of MLAs say no to some of the proposals that they have put their shirt on, what will they do? They must face up to their ethical responsibility.
	The Assembly must not be allowed to be a mere talking shopit must produce goods that the people can examine and say yes or no to. The constitutional nationalists say that they want to see the return of proper devolution. They told us that they love us and want to put their arms around usthat they want us to be with themyet they called us a bunch of rogue Ministers. The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to determine standing orders and to allow the Assembly to deal with matters as he sees fit. However, woe betide him if he tries to gag the Assembly. Its Members must have the freedom to speak their minds.
	There are regional rate rises of 19 per cent. in Northern Ireland, and the future of our education system is being decided. The Minister says that a majority of people in Northern Ireland are in favour of his education system. He clearly does not know what is happening in Northern Ireland, because there is no such majority. I am speaking for Roman Catholic and Protestant constituents, and for Roman Catholic and Protestant schools. Let not this House be bluffed that the education system presented by Ministers is acceptable to Northern Irelandit is not acceptable at all, and well the Minister knows it. No wonder he smiles and his glasses are about to fall from his face.
	I should like all the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland to put their shoulders to the wheel in the Assembly and make it a real motivating factor among the people of Northern Ireland. I should like it to determine and bring in changes. The Government have said that the Bill is structured so that 24 November will be the deadline. Let the House understand this: that does not destroy the original Assembly; it is still there and it will go on. Let me also say that I do not believe that people who have no say in Northern Ireland, do not live in Northern Ireland, and cannot even pronounce the names of the towns of Northern Ireland properly should decide our futurethe people of Northern Ireland should decide that.
	The people of Northern Ireland are told that there is a deadline, but it is the Government's deadline, not the Ulster people's deadline. I am enraged by the fact that as a Unionist I had to wait for years while both Governments talked to Sinn Fein, pleaded with it, handed it money, and tried to bribe it, while the Unionists were ignored. Now I am told that the deadline is 24 November. I do not know of any Member of the Assembly who went pleading for money and asking for 11,000 for their hip pocket. I wish the Minister would tell us who these people are, because there has been no outcry. I have told the Secretary of State that he does not need to threaten us by talking about money: nobody is asking for his money. We are not going to crawl. The people of Ulster can look after themselves, and they do not need these Ministers to say, You're depending on me but you'll not get your money. That is a funny sort of direct rule.
	It is the IRA that needs to change. If the IRA changes from its criminality, terrorism and threats, it will be received in the Assembly on the very same basis as anybody else. I will not say anything about its roguery. We have been called rogues but we shall not say anything about it. Let the IRA repent and
	Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance.
	Then we can all move forward in Northern Ireland to the sort of Government that we want and that Northern Ireland deserves.
	The Government should ask themselves whether, despite all the progress they say that they have made, even one large paramilitary organisation has closed down. The answer is not one. They should not therefore come to us and tell us another story. The story is that not one has closed down. I want them all to close down and all the parties to stand on the one, same basisthat of democracy.
	The Prime Minister said to me in the House that all violence must be done away with
	in a way that satisfies everyone and gives them confidence that the IRA has ceased its campaign, and enables us to move the democratic process forward, with every party that wants to be in government abiding by the same democratic rules.[Official Report, 27 November 2002; Vol. 395, c. 309.]
	I want that and it is what the people of Northern Ireland want. That is building on a sure foundation, not a sham rock. Let us lay a foundation that will last and run the course, not only to the twenty-fourth of some month. Let us create a solid rock of democracy on which we can build for the future. Let us encourage the people of Northern Ireland to enter into proper negotiations on a proper democratic basis so that our problem can be properly resolved.
	No one is losing faith in Northern Ireland. The spirit of the Ulster people is stronger than ever. I believe that we can see something out of this that will bless our children and our children's children.

David Anderson: Unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), I had the great privilege of having a mandate from some of the people of Northern Ireland. In September 1993, I stood against a good colleague from Omagh to be elected as the first national chairman of Unison's national policy committee. That mandate was renewed biannually as I stood as a representative of local government workers in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Part of my remit at the beginning of that term was to bring together the three partner unions that had merged two months previously and to reconcile their different views on organising in Northern Ireland.
	One partner union basically believed that there was no role for our union to organise in a non-united Ireland. It had refused, as a matter of principle, for more than 60 years to organise there. Another believed that members in Northern Ireland should be left alone and not influenced in any way by decisions that we made in Great Britain. The third partner was somewhere in between. To confuse matters further, the two partner unions that had organised in Northern Ireland were affiliated to the British Labour party, even though it did not organise there. The one partner that did not organise in Northern Ireland was not affiliated to the Labour party.
	To say that emotions were strained is an understatement. Feelings ran high and people with long-held, passionate beliefs were not prepared to change easily just because some canny lad from Geordieland wanted them to change. However, through hard work and positive engagement, we developed a process that led to my union being one of the first organisations in Northern Ireland to sign up to the Good Friday agreement, despite some serious reservations.
	We achieved that by refusing to accept the concept of partisanship. We coined the phrase, non-partisan agents of change, which we would be. We developed an agenda that did not take a position on the constitutional arguments. We refused to be drawn into the argument between those who wanted a united Ireland and those who were committed to ensuring that that never happened. We chose instead to focus on issues that reflected the day-to-day lives of our membersthe working people of Northern Ireland.
	We supported civil rights issues from all sides and worked with the often-ignored ethnic minority community in Northern Ireland. We argued for security at work and for better terms and conditions, and against the privatisation of jobs. We acted as a catalyst for people to come together. We shared experiences with other parts of these islands that were seeking to develop their own devolution and self-determination. We put peace and stability on the agenda of the Labour party and we supported politically, practically and financially the work of the shadow state of Northern Ireland while Labour was in opposition. We promoted the equality agenda and condemned attacks on innocent people at home and at work.
	We did what many in this Chamber did: we did our best. In particular, we tried to bring people together. We engaged with various political parties and one of my proudest moments was in early 1996, just five days after the Canary Wharf bombing, when we hosted a weekend seminar in Newcastle, County Down. Representatives of almost every political party in Northern Ireland came and talked about trying to develop a shared future. I am very proud of the work that we did in those years and of the attempts that we made since 1998 to push for a place in which the members of my union could live in peace and security.
	We welcomed the Good Friday agreement as the best deal on offer in 1998 and as a step in the direction away from the path of self-destruction that had been trodden for the previous 30 years. The lack of success since that time has been frustrating for people in Northern Ireland and for the members of my union, and we in the House must do all that we can to start the process to allow those people to move forward again. I am not so naive as to believe that that will be easy, but I am realistic enough to ask, What other option do we have, if we do not pursue this one? People are likely to ask, Why should we not see power back where it belongs? Why should not our elected representatives do the job that we gave them to do? Why should we go on paying out public money if we are not getting the representation that we need and deserve?
	Sadly, this process has been neither happy nor straightforward, but things are getting better, as everyone here today has conceded. I can remember when Belfast was almost a no-go area for people from Great Britain. Now, at weekends, there is an immense transfer of people from my part of the country to Belfast, and vice versa. It is almost impossible to get a plane from Newcastle to Belfast or vice versa on a Friday night, and thank God for that. In economic and security terms, we have seen a massive change, and we should all be proud of that. We should acknowledge, however, that we have much more to do.
	People are engaging in the process, and it is great news that some hon. Members attended the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body this week. They went and made their case and played their part, and I hope that they will continue to do so. It is also good news that the IMC report has given us some hope that things have improved, and that the leadership of the Provisional IRA is committed to a peaceful path and is trying to stop its followers engaging in criminal activity. Let me make it clear: the leadership must realise that those involved in crime and terrorism are not welcome in our democratic institutions, and it must do everything in its power to ensure that they do not become involved in that way.
	Let us also move away from the debate about saying that the organisations should sort out their criminal malcontents. Let us give our security forces the message that they should be doing that. They should act decisively against those who are identified as being engaged in criminal activity. The organisations that want to become involved in our democratic institutions should help the police and the security forces to carry out that work. That is part and parcel of the job of being a democratic politician.
	In every dispute, every war and every battle, the time comes to move on. That time is now. Unlike most disputes, wars or battles, no one has clearly won this one, although many people have lost so much that it is untrue. But we must make progress. The choice is ours. The debate is about all of us, not just about Northern Ireland.

Gordon Banks: I come from a Scottish constituency where we have enjoyed devolution since 1999 and seen the real benefits of it. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a real opportunity to deliver to Northern Ireland the benefits that the rest of these islands have enjoyed since 1999, and that such an opportunity should not be missed?

David Anderson: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend and I wish that the people of the north-east had been given a chance similar to that which Scotland has enjoyed and that has been on offer to our friends from Northern Ireland today. Had we be given such a deal, we might have voted for it.
	We must accept our responsibilities. In doing so, we must accept that we do not always get what we want. I say to Members of the House that we should take up the challenge, make it happen and make it work. The alternative is the continuation of direct rule, with which everybody, I believe, is unhappy. We can give my former colleagues and some close friends much greater control and say over the way in which their lives are directed. Since I entered the House, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has discussed constantly how direct rule stops the things that ordinary people believe in happening. I am not happy that, at times, we do things that are not the wishes of the Northern Ireland people. If we move forward in this way, it will give them a much greater chance and say to influence their lives and those of generations to come.

Patrick Cormack: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson), who serves on the Select Committee and has a real and deep affection for Northern Ireland, which is obvious whenever one travels there with him.
	I am also glad to be the first Opposition Member to speak after the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), who made a highly significant speech, as people will realise when they read it in Hansard tomorrow. He and his deputy, the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), have both contributed significantly during this month. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), who spoke eloquently from the Front Bench, referred to the two speeches made by the hon. Member for Belfast, East, one in the United States on 6 April and the other at the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body on Monday. The substance of the speeches of both the leader and the deputy leader of the DUP was that, for all the difficulties that they face in doing so, they are prepared to sit down with and serve with those of very different political persuasions so long as those people play by the democratic rules and make it abundantly clear that that is what they are doing.
	I, like the right hon. Member for North Antrim and my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury, support the Bill. I wish the Government well over the next few months. I hope that the negotiations will succeed. I am worried about deadlinesI realise that they must be there, but I would rather have the end of the year than 24 November. People in the rest of the United Kingdom do not fully face up to the difficulties that there will be and the daily burden of those who practise democratic politics in Northern Ireland if there is to be a restored Assembly. Those daily burdens have been referred to obliquely in this debate in many ways.
	First, as I said in Question Time todayand the Secretary of State agreedit is inconceivable that anybody who is engaged directly or indirectly in criminality should be involved in the government of any part of the United Kingdom, whether this House, a district or parish council or a devolved Parliament or Assembly. It is absolutely crucial that those who say that they have renounced the bullet for the ballot box prove that in every possible way.
	Like the Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury and the former Secretary ofState, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr.   Murphy), who spoke splendidly earlier, I greatly welcome today's IMC report and what it says. However, we must not make the mistake, because we are encouraged by the good bits, of neglecting the others. There is a clear indication in that report that leading figures on the undemocratic republican side, while they might have renounced terrorism and engaged in a massive act of decommissioningthe latter I accept, and the former I hope that I can acceptare still benefiting from the ill-gotten gains of some pretty horrendous crimes and are still involved in those crimes. It would be wrong for me, as Chairman of the Select Committee, to pre-empt a report that has not yet been drafted, let alone published, but there are several members of the Committee in the Chamber who have listened with me to evidence that we have received from a variety of people and organisations. Some has been heard in public and some in camera because of its sensitivity. We have been told clearly that there are those who have been involved with IRA-Sinn Fein who are deeply implicated in acts of criminality, who have been so implicated in the recent past and almost certainly are at present.
	There must be an absolute renunciation. When I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury to say that the best thing that Sinn Fein could do would be to disband the IRA, I meant what I said. That would send those who want Northern Ireland to have a proper democratic future a real signal that Sinn Fein was indeed seeking to turn its back on the past.
	We cannot make hatred historywhich is what we must do in Northern Irelandwe cannot engender trust, and we cannot properly embrace the doctrine of forgiveness in which the right hon. Member for North Antrim made clear that he truly believes unless there is a proper understanding that those who wish to sit down with the Social Democratic and Labour party, the Democratic Unionist party and the Ulster Unionist party are putting themselves in a context of what I would call democratic equality.
	Even when that happens, there will still be real difficulties in making the Assembly work. The right hon. Member for Torfaen touched on them, amusingly, when he said that he would find it difficult to enter into a coalition with Tories or Liberal Democrats. I would find it difficult to enter into a political coalition with friendsof whom I have manyon the other side of the House, not because I do not trust them and not because I would for a moment impugn their democratic credentials, but because we have very different political beliefs. Yet we in the rest of the United Kingdom are asking the democratic parties in Northern Ireland to sit down with Sinn Fein, whose political beliefsas I said earlierare inimical to those of most of us in the Chamber, wherever we come from. Sinn Fein's economic and education policies are closer to those of Cuba than to those of the United Kingdom.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: They are Marxist.

Patrick Cormack: They are indeed.
	Because of the demography of Northern Ireland and the sad history of recent decades, we recognise that we must try to find an accommodation and work with those people. The least that we can expect is for them to behave in the same way as Marxist parties in some democraciesalthough not manyin other parts of the world.
	We are asking a great deal. I make a plea to the Government on two fronts. I understand why the Secretary of State cannot be present, and I hope that the Minister, who is diligent, will relay my points to him. First, while I accept the firmness of the Government's intention and wish for a deadline, I think that it would be sensible to make it the end of the year. Secondly and more important, I think that it would be sensible, if we are to plead with the parties in Northern Ireland to work together, to refrain from any unnecessary Orders in Council in the House, at least until the November deadline specified by the Government.
	Several speakers, including the right hon. Member for Torfaen, referred to the reform of local government. At the moment, this House is imposing on the people of Northern Ireland a democratic local government structure that none of the democratic parties wants. It is clear to me from my many conversations with people in Northern Ireland that there is an acceptance that there are too many local authorities. But there is an equal acceptance among most to whom I speak that seven authorities is too fewan acceptance of the logic of the argument of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) that such a structure runs the risk of polarising Northern Ireland for generations into, Three green, three orange and Belfast. Such a structure cannot be good if we truly want a Northern Ireland that works together.
	Frankly, it was very undemocratic of the Secretary of State to dismiss such worries when he was intervened on by saying that business people and various groups want such a structure. Northern Ireland's elected politicians, who are playing a part in the democratic structures of this House, do not want it, so I beg the Minister to put that proposal on ice and to say, as a real encouragement to those who would participate in a proper and fully functioning Assembly, We will not impose on you a new local government structure if you can get your act together by the deadline.
	I also hope that the same will prove true of education. I accept that unanimity among the parties on this issue does not exist; indeed, it is clear from the evidence that my Committee took, and from talking to people, that there is division. There is probably a majority in Northern Ireland who do not want the change that the Government are seeking to impose, although there seems to be a general recognition that the form of the 11-plus could be altered. However, we should let the Assembly get its teeth into this issue and deal with it. As I said in a jocular aside to the right hon. Member for North Antrim, I am not sure that this House should even be passing water until 24 November; there again, there are deep divisions in Northern Ireland and real concerns. [Interruption.] Perhaps that is what the right hon. Gentleman, who is no longer in his place, has gone to do. [Interruption.] That was indeed a very indelicate remark.
	I urge the Minister to recognise that we are dealing with a number of issues that will affect the daily lives of the people of Northern Ireland for generations to come, and that we are anxious to have an Assembly that represents, is elected by and is answerable to them. Should not that Assembly have the same freedom to decide on such issues as the Parliament established in Scotland and the Assembly established in Wales? If we all mean business, there will have to be give and take on all sides. The absent ones in this Housethe Sinn Fein Members who do not take their seatshave got to prove their democratic credentials. I would like them to be here, but if they will not come here, they should at least make the absolute and total renunciation that I have talked about. I say to the Unionist partiesand to the Social Democratic and Labour party; I well remember the bravery of Gerry Fittthat those who have suffered at the hands of gangsters and terrorists will have to sit down with those who have been gangsters or terrorists, or who supported them. A lot of give and take is involved.
	We in this House must be prepared to say, We are going to draw back from interference and domination while you have this period to sort yourselves out. That is not too much to ask of the Governmentit is not too heavy a price for them to payin order to preserve a truly bipartisan policy. I am very pleased that we in the Select Committee do not divide on party lines. I hope that we will not, and that this House will not do so today or tomorrow. I very much hope that the Secretary of State's wishes will be fulfilled, but I ask that he show the degree of caution and tolerance that is necessary if we are to have a real chance of achieving success on 24 November.

DEFERRED DIVISION

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have now to announce the result of a deferred Division.
	On the motion relating to Northern Ireland, the Ayes were 262, the Noes were 184, so the motion was agreed to.
	[The Division Lists are published at the end of today's debates.]

Northern Ireland Bill

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am pleased to speak, if only briefly, in this debate. I wish to take the opportunity to make a few comments, but I shall begin by welcoming many of the speeches that have preceded me, not least the speech by the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). All the speeches so far have been characterised by courage and leadership. I represent a constituency with no historical affinity or great links with Northern Irelandalthough I have spoken regularly on Northern Ireland mattersbut the contributions have filled me with great optimism. While a long journey remains to be made, I and other colleagues are greatly encouraged.
	There are enormous reasons in Northern Ireland politics for the long history of distrust on all sides and they are measured in the incidents of violence and the atrocities that have been perpetrated, which we all condemn. Even recently, there are reasons to extend that distrust further, such as the recent history of bank raids and the failure to sign up properly to the changes to policing and the criminal justice system. Even in the welcome report by the IMC today, we see paragraphs onthe dissident republican groups and loyalist paramilitarism. Despite that, as the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) mentioned, we are today considering a leap of faith. However, that leap will not be taken completely in the dark: it is based on evidence.
	We can begin with the IRA statement on 28 July, in which it clearly signalled the end of an armed campaign. The history of Northern Ireland suggests that we should view that with distrust, but it is a significant issue on its own. The IMC report noted, despite reservations in certain areas, a sea change in Northern Ireland politics and the willingness of groups to lay down the gun and subscribe to the democratic process.
	Indeed, the greater peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland is illustrated by the story of Belfast itself. My wife now regularly travels to Belfast for her away day with fellow wives, but only 10 or 15 years ago that would have been almost inconceivable. Belfast is now one of the destinations to which people aspire to travel to spend time in, not least because of the welcome received and the friendliness of the people there.
	The Bill is a question of faith, and that also applies to the Government. Ministers have the strong belief, which I share, that if they pass the ball firmly across to the politicians of Northern Ireland, they will run with it and deliver. I am encouraged by this debate and I believe that the ball will not be fumbled or dropped. There is every hope that in the ensuing months we will see not simply an Executive, butdespite the worries about a talking shopa fully functioning democratic institution with a mandate, so that Assembly Members can deliver their promises and make their judgments, instead of that being done by the MP for Ogmore and others like me. That is what I hope for today.
	There will always be thousands of reasons to hesitate about making progress in Northern Ireland. The only reason for making progress is that that is what will benefit the wider population there. Politicianswhether they belong to the Assembly or the Oppositionknow that what happens to them is less important than delivering peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland. The Bill is an essential step in that endeavour.
	I hope that members of the DUP, the UUP, the SDLP and other parties will use the proceedings of today and tomorrow to take matters forward. History will not say that they sold out or that they were backsliders; they will be remembered as statesmen and stateswomen with courage and vision in difficult times. These difficult questions are not for political journeymen, and the right hon. Member for North Antrim was correct to say that we must look beyond the horizon. I have every hope that we can move forward today.
	It would be unfair of me to finish my brief remarks if I did not pay tribute to those who have brought us to this point. Former Secretaries of State, both Labour and Conservative, have made important contributions, and members of the UUP, the DUP, the SDLP and other parties have taken incrementally courageous and painful decisions to get us to where we are today. I look forward to the day when my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) can celebrate a very good birthday, when his present will be that the political institutions in Northern Ireland are in place and running effectively, led by Northern Ireland politicians.

Peter Robinson: It might be useful if I begin by saying that my colleagues and I have entered into a pact; we will speak for no more than 10 minutes each, so that all hon. Members who want to contribute to the debate can do so. That shows that concessions are being made already. [Laughter.]
	We do not intend to vote against the Bill getting a Second Reading this evening, even thought it is not everything that my party would want. Many elements could be improved, although we recognise that there are time constraints. I share the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) that this measure should be renamed and that, instead of being called the Northern Ireland Bill, it should be called The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland Bill, as it seems to give him enormous powers.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker has just announced the results of last week's deferred Division on Northern Ireland delegated legislation. That vote came after two days of Committee debate on the Floor of the House on the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, when there was widespread criticism of how legislation is handled here. There were calls for a much greater degree of democracy in the process, yet this Bill gives so many powers to the Secretary of State that the person who holds that office will be a virtual dictator.
	I am not talking about a particular individual when I say that, as I would say the same regardless of who was Secretary of State. However, when the Government are unsure of what the future holds, they give powers to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in a way that would not be acceptable in any other part of the UK. We must move away from that practice.
	This Bill arises from a joint statement by the Prime Ministers of the UK and the Republic of Ireland, paragraph 10 of which implied that certain threats would be made real if the parties in Northern Ireland did not meet the deadline set. The threat was that some form of partnership would be established between the two Governmentsindeed, the statement actually contained the word partnershipand that it would go beyond their present relationship.
	I think that that would be damaging. I advised the Government and their officials before the statement came out that that was not the route to take. Ulster men and women do not respond well to threats; I think the Secretary of State is beginning to learn that lesson, although sadly a little too late.
	I welcome what the Secretary of State had to say in the House today. I suspect that he will have to say it an awful lot more to convince people, but I believe that it is imperative that the Secretary of State makes it very clear that he will not move away from the principle of consent. The Government cannot argue that they are abiding by the statement in the Belfast agreement, which is, we are told, confirming the principle of consent, and in the next breath indicate that they have intentions to allow some form of joint management or joint sovereignty or joint authority to come after 24 November.
	The role of the Assembly is one of the areas where the Government have not gone as far as this party would have asked them to. Like the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), we wanted an Assembly that was going to be able to take decisions. We do not want a talking shop; we want to come to agreements and to have those agreements implemented. That arises out of our document Facing reality, which recognised that for the immediate future it would not be possible to set up an Executive in Northern Ireland and that therefore in the meantime, however short or long that might be, the Assembly should be doing some productive work and the highest level of devolution should take place consistent with the circumstances.
	I certainly agree with the very eloquent and thoughtful remarks made by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) that the Government do need to go a little further than simply saying, we shall take into account what the parties in Northern Ireland have said. It would be a travesty if the parties in Northern Ireland were to reach an agreement in that Assembly, for instance on water charging, and the Government failed to give it life. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's humour was lost on those who were not there for the earlier part of the debate, and they may have wondered why he was restricting Members from passing water, but I think that the Minister who is replying to the debate would do well to take up our challenge to him and his colleagues.
	I hope that the hon. Member for Foyle and his colleagues will join us in testing the Government on these issues, because I would like us very early in the life of that Assembly to knuckle down to some of the issues that have been referred to, whether it is water charging, or education, or the review of public administration, or the rating system or even how we might handle the economy, and reach agreements on those, and put them to the Government to see what they will do in those circumstances. I say to the Government, if they fail to give life to agreements that are reached in that Assembly, they will dent, if not destroy, the credibility of the Assembly, and indeed the purpose of any of us being there. So I hope that the hon. Member for Foyle will join us in testing the Government and seeing just how far the definition of taking account of what we have to say in the Assembly will go.
	Likewise, following on from that, I want to make it very clear that there cannot be a move towards executive devolutionleaving aside the issue of paramilitary and criminal activityuntil such time as changes are made to the Belfast agreement. My colleagues and I have a fundamental issue about the structures that arose out of the Belfast agreement. That is not simply because we produced policy documents and manifesto commitments and they are binding on us, but because of what we believethat there are issues in relation to the stability of the Assembly, accountability within the Assembly, and the efficiency and effectiveness of that Assembly, that have to be addressed. We addressed those issues back in 2004 in negotiations that we had with Her Majesty's Government and we asked for changes to be made.
	Some of the changes in the comprehensive agreement were not exactly as we would have had them be. Improvements could be made; indeed, some improvements could be made that might bring it more into line with some of the thoughts of the SDLP, but those changes will have to be made or there will never be any prospect of us moving into an executive form of devolution if it relies on the support of the Democratic Unionist party.
	We are a party with a mandate that is opposed to the Belfast agreement. These are essential changes that need to be made in order that progress can be made. I think the Government understand that; I just hope that other parties in Northern Ireland understand that. In many ways they were catered for to some extent in the comprehensive agreement proposals.
	The hon. Member for South Staffordshire referred to the picking and choosing of the IMC report. Everybody who believes in democracy and peace in Northern Ireland will welcome progress on ending paramilitary activity. When we reflect on the early 1970s, we recall that more than 470 people were murdered in a 12-month period, in a small community of about 1.5 million. Only a fool comparing that picture with the current situation would say anything other than that there has been significant progress, but the Secretary of State and the Minister should not expect to hear applause from the Democratic Unionist Benches. We do not believe that 470 people should have been killed in the first place, so we find it difficult to give credit to people because now they are not killing our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland. That is why there will be no cheers from our Benches.
	At the same time, we can acknowledge that there has been progress, although as the hon. Member for South Staffordshire said, there is still progress to be made. We cannot simply take the parts of the IMC report that say this or that is better without also considering the untied things that need to be tied downthe grey areas that must be dealt withso it is essential that the Government do not send out a signal to terrorist organisations saying, You've really done enough. The message must be clear: there is more to do.
	If the process is working, let us continue with the strategy that it is up to the IRA to finish the course. My colleagues and I deserve considerable credit for the strategy that we proposed, because the previous one was to bring in the IRA and to allow its members to have their cake and eat it. That is exactly what they did; they had their cake and they are still eating it. When the Minister responds to the debate, I hope that he will express greater urgency about the IRA finishing the course, rather than marking time as it is doing at present.

Meg Hillier: Like other Members, I welcome the tantalising glimpse of restored power in Northern Ireland, possibly by 24 November.
	As Democratic Unionist Members are limiting their speeches to 10 minutes, I shall try to do the same, in a spirit of collaboration and co-operation. I want to focus on some of the benefits of devolution and what it could mean for Northern Ireland.
	The Government have introduced devolution in Scotland, Wales and London. I was one of the 25 members of the original London assembly elected in 2000 and am one of only 34 assembly members to date. We are the smallest city government in Europe, a contrast with the Northern Ireland Assembly of 108 Members.
	Local government was restored to London in 2000. I am on record as having many differences, at different times, with the incumbent Mayor of London; no doubt I and others will have differences with future Mayors, but I defend the institution, as I defend the principle of devolving power to the most appropriate level.
	I want to highlight some of the benefits that we have seen in London, because the people of Northern Ireland could see similar benefits if the Assembly sets up an Executive and power is truly devolved. The main change has been in transport where there has been a real transformation. There has been a huge increase in bus services and a reduction in car travel, which could not have happened when such issues were run solely from Westminster. It was the power and will of a London Mayor who could make decisions for the whole city that made the difference. There is a whole-London approach and a strong political voice, with political power devolved to a wider city region.
	One of the crucial decisions in which was London involved could not have been made without the devolution of power: the delivery of the London Olympics. There is an important parallel for Northern Ireland. Theoretically, such decisions could have been made through local government, but we could not have had the Olympics because no London borough would voluntarily have voted for a council tax increase of 20 a year for their residents. Whether or not we agree with the Mayor's decision, he was in a position to take it.
	The parallel with Northern Ireland is perhaps the review of local administration and the current debate about the future of local government there. As it stands today, many small district councils and numerous public bodies run health, education and other public services. If regional government, the Assembly and the Executive are restored, the people of Northern Ireland will be able to take decisions that will deliver for the whole of Northern Ireland rather than for the individual districts or individual service areas. London has a population of 7.5 million, Northern Ireland about 1.5 million; but I firmly believe that both have the right to be released from the grip of Westminster control.
	It is rather peculiar for me, a London Member of Parliament, to be in my place today taking decisions on Northern Ireland issues in a Chamber that is lamentably empty of the Members who will pass through the Lobbies if we divide tonight or on other occasions when we debate Northern Ireland legislation. It feels wrong that the people of Northern Ireland who elect their own representatives here, albeit only a handful in the House as a whole, do not have links to a directly elected Assembly in Northern Ireland.
	Members have already debated the issue of whether it is right for the Secretary of State to suspend decisions on Northern Ireland between 15 May and 24 November. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) made his point eloquently. As he rightly said, we often find ourselves in agreement in the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. I am not making a party political point, but I disagree with him on this matter. The Government cannot stand still in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. For example, if we suspended decisions on the review of public administration as he suggests, and if, in the worst case scenario, the attempt to set up the Executive failed, we would then be left with the variety of small district councils, which might be unable to take on some of the requisite responsibilities.

Patrick Cormack: If it were delayed until November and if failure resulted at that time, all I am suggesting is that the Government would be entitled to proceed. I believe that it is right to leave it until then; I would rather it were a little longer, but at least until then.

Meg Hillier: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but even during the six-month period, we need to make progress. It is in the power of 108 Assembly Members to come together and take the decision. It is an opportunity for the Assembly to step up to the plate, set up the Executive and take the important decisions on education, water charges, the future of local government and public administration that need to be taken.
	Select Committee members will recall that we visited Northern Ireland in connection with our brief foray into the reform of secondary education and the particular issue of the transfer test. I was struck by the number of parents who felt strongly about that issue. They and I felt disempowered. I was in a position, in a sense, to take decisions on their behalf, but they had no direct link to me. Their only electoral link was to a handful of Northern Ireland MPs, not to their own Assembly. I believe that the people of Northern Ireland now have the opportunity to gain a more direct electoral influence. As other hon. Members have said, that is extremely important.
	Another contentious issue is the payment of the 108 Assembly Members. I heard the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) explain his interpretation of the Secretary of State's comments as insulting to some of those Members. Many of them are carrying out good work and genuinely representing the interests of their constituents as they stand. However, the people of Northern Ireland voted for their Assembly Members to do a job for them on the Assembly itself and to represent their interests on the Assembly. While hon. Members in the House and in other regional assemblies have a responsibility to provide support and casework, it is usually because we have a link with the body to which we have been elected. How this matter plays with the public in Northern Ireland is important, as 108 Members are being paid without any Assembly sitting. Wherever the fault may lie, that is the reality. The public's patience will wear thin if the problem is not resolved. They voted for an Assembly, not a phantom.
	I tremble at the thought of this attempt to restore Executive power not working. We would then perhaps face the possibly of local government taking on more power, and I have had some interesting discussions with Members on a cross-party basis about what that could mean. Many of the quangos that are run effectively from Westminster and the Northern Ireland Office would continue and, of course, the hand of the Northern Ireland Office would still continue to run the services. I have no particular issue with my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office. I see the Minister looking around nervously at me, but I hope that he would agree that it is not right that he should be making such decisions and that they should be made by the people of Northern Ireland.
	Like the hon. Member for South Staffordshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), I was heartened by the comments made by the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). I felt that that was a momentous speech, and hon. Members will look back on this day and be privileged that we were here to hear it in person. He talked about having no deadline and the people of Northern Ireland deciding. I ask him and others who have this power in their hands to go into the Assembly and set up the Executive, and then the power will be in the control of the people of Northern Ireland and the parties that have those interests.
	In many respects, I hope that this will be one of the last times in the House that hon. Members debate Northern Ireland issues and Executive decision making over the people of Northern Ireland and that, very shortly, those decisions will be made in Parliament Buildings, by the directly elected representatives of the Northern Ireland people.

Gregory Campbell: In debating the possible future of the Northern Ireland Assembly, it is absolutely imperative that the Government and the Minister who will answer the debate understand what our community requires. It is not a requirement built on prejudice. It is not an excessive or extreme requirement, but it is a requirement that will not move. It is a reasonable requirement, which we demanded a considerable number of years ago. It remains steadfast today, and it will remain exactly the same at midnight on 24 November.
	Our requirement is twofold. First, it relates to the Provisional IRA. The IMC report has been released today, and progress has been made. I make what I hope will be the very obvious and helpful statement that if we are making progress with democratising the IRA, we keep making that progress. If we are pushing those in the IRA in the right direction, we keep pushing them in the same direction. We do not ease up; we do not change tack; we do not legitimise them, but we keep pushing them in the same direction.
	Therefore, if the tactics of a more recent vintage are workingunlike the tactics leading up to 1998 and subsequently, which patently did not workthe message is clear: we keep adopting the same tactics. If that takes until November or December, or November 2007 or 2008, we keep adopting the same tactics. We require the IRA to be gone, to be history, to be out of guns and out of business and to be finished and not coming back. That is the first aspect of what we require, and every reasonable person in Northern Irelandboth those who support the DUP and those who may come to support our party in futurewill agree to that prerequisite.
	The other thing that we require is an acceptable system of government. We need an acceptable system for the Assembly. That system was not provided in 1998. Some of the changes that we have seenI hope that more are to comeare potentially the ones that we would require. The system would then be more accountable, more democratic and more responsive to the people of Northern Ireland. If those two eminently reasonable requirements were metwe hope that they will bewe would embrace devolved government, with all the democratic political parties playing their role.
	The question is, by 24 November will Sinn Fein be the same as every other political party in Northern Ireland that is upholding democracy? My view is that it will not. In the midst of much lauding of what has happened to date, people may well think that there will be some sortof fast-forward process between today and 24 November. Methinks not, but I remain to be convinced. If the IRA goes into history in the next six monthsas it has not over the past 37 yearsthat will be some fast forward, which I will welcome, and which will be widely welcomed by the community that we represent.
	I hope that those two prerequisites will be viewed and welcomed by democrats everywhere. However, I want to urge another word of caution. In this House and elsewhere, some hon. Members have made statements regarding Sinn Fein's need to support the police. It would be foolish for people to say that a statement in support of the police by Gerry Adams, or anyone else in the leadership of Sinn Fein, would automatically mean that an organisation that has spent 37 years engaging inmayhem, murder and slaughter was suddenly democratic, by virtue of issuing that statement.
	Sinn Fein needs to be in a credible position that allows it to support the police. Anyone can issue a statement. We have watched Sinn Fein as it has tried to reconcile what are supposed to be pragmatic elements in the republican movement with those who are less pragmatic. Allegedly, it has been saying different things to different elements in the republican movement. Why do people not believe that Sinn Fein would do the same with regard to the police? It could issue a statement of support for the police, but at the same time say to the backwoodsmen, who are allegedly supposed to be holding the process back, This is simply a device to allow us to corrupt the Policing Board from within and to ensure that the policing system falls apart. Sinn Fein must be credible in supporting the police. In other words, it must have divested itself of all aspects of criminality. Then, we would expect and demand a statement of support for the police, because Sinn Fein would be credible in offering it. I caution Members not to say simply, Sinn Fein must issue a statement of support for the police. It needs to do much more than that.
	Unfortunately, in recent weeks and months there have been approaches to members of my party that have seemed to indicate that the reasonable position that we are putting forwardand which we have put forward for yearsis somehow perceived as a radical departure. There seems to be an idea that people who previously had hornsthat is to say, members of the Democratic Unionist partyhave gone through some form of metamorphosis, re-formed ourselves into democrats and are now suddenly reasonable people. It appears that there is some confusion. Members cannot seem to distinguish between having a reasonable position, which we have, and being utterly resolute and determined that we will give no inch or quarter to terrorists, murderers and those who would pollute democracy.

David Winnick: I intervene because the impression may be given that the DUP has some sort of monopoly on combating terrorism. We know how people in Northern Ireland sufferedno doubt DUP members, as wellbut does the hon. Gentleman accept that the fight against terrorism was sustained in the House of Commons by those then on the Opposition Benches, as well, obviously, as by the then Government? Does he accept that those of us who had various viewsvery different from hisabout Northern Ireland and its future, made clear from day one our absolute opposition to terrorism and our belief that neither the IRA, nor the loyalist paramilitaries, had any justification for the mass murder, the killings and the serious injuries that were sustained?

Gregory Campbell: I fully accept the hon. Gentleman's repeated opposition to the use of violence. However, I have to contrast that view with the propositions of various Governments who have accommodated terror. Unfortunately, there have been votes in the House through which people have tried to buy off terrorists, so I must contrast those two positions.
	I must conclude, to allow other hon. Members to enter the debate. We all hope that progress can be made. We will knuckle down to getting to grips with important issues such as the reform of public administration, education and the water tax. People expect their public representatives to be dealing with all those matters, so we must, and will, deal with them. However, a crunch point will come, whether at midnight on 24 November or sooner.
	That crunch point will be whether the elected representatives of the majority of Unionism are prepared to proceed into government with people who are still engaging in criminality and illegal activity, such as fuel smuggling and money laundering. When that crunch time occurs, there will be absolutely no doubt whatever about the response from this party. We will not enter the Executive if that is the position of those people at the time, or subsequently. What was wrong five, 10, or 15 years ago will be wrong next year, never mind on 24 November. When we get a democratised Sinn Fein and democracy rules in the Northern Ireland Assembly, we will embrace that and enter wholeheartedly.

Eddie McGrady: The Bill is one of the many initiatives introduced by the two Governments to try to end the suspension and get restoration. As a gesture of good will, I immediately offer a voluntary coalition and partnership with the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) by limiting my remarks to 10 minutes. With that modest start, I hope that from an acorn, an oak tree will growbut that remains to be seen.
	I assure the Government and hon. Members that the Social Democratic and Labour party wants to live up to all aspects of the Good Friday agreement, which, we must recall, was not selective, but all-embracing, for the good of all the people of Northern Ireland and the greater good of all the people of the entire island of Ireland. Much as our Members of the Legislative Assembly are criticised, sometimes very unfairly, they, like MLAs of other parties, work assiduously in their constituencies. However, they want to work assiduously as elected representatives in an elected forum to deal with the matters before us today. The SDLP will do everything in its power to grasp this opportunity and ensure that there is a push, a drive and a dialogueperhaps compromise will be needed all roundto achieve a devolved Administration, we hope long before the deadline of 24 November.
	My objection to deadlines is not that they set a specific target, but that they give people the excuse to wait until the eleventh hour of the last day. It would be regrettable if that happened. When everything is analysed, there is a fair possibility that elected Members of all the parties in Northern Ireland could come to a meaningful agreement before the summer recess. I have heard what DUP Members have said about making benchmarks against progress regarding paramilitaries.
	Perhaps because it is not emphasised sufficiently, it is often forgotten that the nationalist community suffered as much from the Provisional IRA and the loyalists as any other group in Northern Irelandin many cases, much more. None the less, we have a responsibility, given the tremendous change in circumstances in the past 10 years, to take some things on faith. We have more faith than we had in the past, and we must ensure that the distrust that has grown up between the parties and that has been nurtured by them is diminished as much as possible. Sometimes the parties themselves do not engender trust, and the Irish and British Governments have made a major contribution to that distrust. If round-table openness in negotiations is not forthcoming and private deals are done at Downing street or Leinster house in Dublin, that will create more distrust and suspicion than the parties themselves can create.
	I make a special plea to the British Government, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister to refrain from engaging in the cloak-and-dagger arrangements that have been the privilege of the two partiesthe DUP and Sinn Fein. It is not a question of sour grapes, as the evolution of trust is a practical requirement. I remind the House that the comprehensive agreement was neither comprehensive nor an agreement. The flyleaf at the beginning contained one sentence which, as I recall, said, The British and Irish Governments have prepared this comprehensive agreement and submitted it to Sinn Fein and the DUP. All other parties were excluded from that endeavour, and the agreement was not even addressed to them.
	I therefore make an earnest plea to the Government not to engage in the kind of dialogue in which they have previously engaged because, as Members have already said, there is an extremely serious situation in Northern Ireland. On many occasions back home, I have said that by 2008 or 2009 our way of life in Northern Ireland will change dramatically, given the reform of local government, education, housing, rating, water charges and so on. However, not a single vote for any of those changes has been cast by a Northern Ireland party.
	The suggestion that such a huge social transformation could take place in that way in any other country or part of the United Kingdom would be regarded as ludicrous, but those massive changes have indeed taken place in Northern Ireland. Time and time again, the parties in Northern Ireland have demonstrated unanimity in their opposition, but the heat was not taken off. That is why I asked the Secretary of State what he meant by saying that he will take account of the Assembly's opinion on certain matters referred to it. Using the yardstick of education, the reform of public administration and matters such as student fees, water rates and rate revisions, it is clear that the parties of Northern Ireland oppose what the Government have done. We wanted to do things differently, but we were ignored. If that happens in the Assembly, it will become a talking shop that pretends to be able to influence matters while the reality is that all the decisions are still made by the Northern Ireland Office.
	That is why I say that if the parties cannot get together by agreement, extending the process into November is a danger in itself. The failure to deliver agreement under the Good Friday agreement can have certain benefits for the DUP, which might see it as the final nail in the coffin of the Good Friday agreement and might want nothing further, being content to sit on the Opposition Benchesor it may have benefits for Sinn Fein, which has other political objectives in mind, particularly concentrating its political efforts on the campaign for the new Dail, which takes place early next year.
	The people who will suffer are the people of Northern Ireland who, God knows and we all agree, have suffered enough. Unless we have the honest intention of getting together and participating in devolution together, we will be damned for all eternity. For exampleI must be brief, in order to keep to my partnership with the hon. Member for Belfast, Eastthe greatest single danger to the future of Northern Ireland is what the Government are doing about the reform of public administration.
	That has been called the cantonisation, or balkanisation, of Northern Ireland, which will be split by a line running north to south. The area to the west will be green. The area to the east will be blue or orange, depending on which lodge people are in. That will be a huge drawback for the people of Northern Ireland. It is the blueprint for division, separation and sectarianism. I beg the Government to stand back from that and take cognisance of the opinions of the local people, who do not oppose the reform of public administration if that is done in a meaningful, effective and democratic way. That is the last thing that I shall say in my speech, but to me it is the most important. It is the driving force which should get us all together to prevent it from happening.

Lady Hermon: I am grateful to be called to speak on the Second Reading of such an important Bill. As the Minister and hon. Members will have gleaned from the number of interventions that I have made, I shall speak against the Bill. For obvious logistical reasons, I will not divide the House this evening. Not only would I lose, but more importantly, I would not able to supply the Tellers. I pay tribute to the Democratic Unionist Members who supplied the Tellers last week in Committee, when we were debating amendments that I had tabled. However, this is a different week and a different subject.
	The right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) welcomed the Bill. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) for calling into question the amount of Executive power being taken by the Government in the Bill. As I said, I shall speak against the Bill but will not divide the House, so any hon. Member who needs to fulfil an engagement later can do so.
	I am disturbed by a pattern adopted by the Governmenta pattern whereby they use the ends to justify the means. In doing so, they take to themselves an enormous amount of Executive power. In opening the debate, the Secretary of State mentioned the peace process, the restoration of devolved government and direct rule. Those are all laudable aims. Although I loathe and detest direct rule, I take no exception to any of those laudable aims. I do, however, take grave exception to the Bill, for three reasons. We are being asked to approve not the lifting of the suspension, but the creation of a completely new creature, which has, unfortunately, been christened, the Assembly. It is not a shadow Assembly or a devolved Assembly, and it includes the same 108 Assembly MembersI am not one of them, but I have enormous regard for them, regardless of their party.
	The Secretary of State has indicated that he does not regret christening the new creature the Assembly. What will the new creature do? It can talk and think about electing a First Minister, a Deputy Minister and Executive Ministers, and if it is very lucky, it can also discuss such other matters as the Secretary of State thinks fit. In other words, 108 noble Assembly Members must sit and wait for the crumbs to fall from the Secretary of State in order to discuss anything. What will be the effect of any of their debates or resolutions?
	The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) has discussed the review of public administration, on which the resolutions of the Assembly will have no effect whatsoever. Very soon, people in Northern Ireland will discover that the new Assembly cannot introduce legislation to, for example, monitor sex offenders, save grammar schools or roll back the review of public administration. The public could become disenchanted with the Assembly and the devolved Administration generally, which would cause me great concern. I hope that other hon. Members are also concerned about the public feeling disillusioned with attempts to restore devolved government in Northern Ireland.
	I was particularly perturbed that the hon. Member for Belfast, East made no reference to the Assembly election being postponed. On 14 May 2003, he stated:
	There can be no more crucial issue in any democratic society than maintaining the purity of the electoral process, and there is no more serious constitutional matter than a Government stepping in to abort a democratic election.[Official Report, 14 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 422.]
	I was disappointed that he did not make that point earlier.

Peter Robinson: I wanted to make six further points in my speech, one of which concerned elections. If the hon. Lady wants to examine my notes, I have them here. I wanted to discuss elections, but in deference to my hon. Friends, I did not have time to do so.

Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting that on the record. I look forward with bated breath to DUP Members expressing concern and objections about a democratic election to the Assembly being postponed for no particularly good reason. I would be delighted to share his notes over a cup of tea in the Tea Room, but only his notesthe hon. Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson) is welcome to attend, too. It is a serious issue in a democracy that the date of a scheduled election can be changed at the whim and whimsy of the Secretary of State.
	I am glad that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) is in the Chamber. I was most concerned that the spokesperson for Her Majesty's loyal Opposition did not question the shifting of the scheduled Assembly election, but there will be an opportunity for him to do so tomorrow when we discuss the amendments that have been tabled for the Committee.

Laurence Robertson: I apologise to the hon. Lady for missing the beginning of her speech. I have tabled an amendment for tomorrow that questions the clause that gives the Secretary of State the power to delay that election.

Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. That will give us all an opportunity to object to it. I look forward to that debate.
	An enormous amount of Executive power is being taken to the Secretary of State under cover of this Bill. If we allow it to go through unchallenged this eveningas we have indicatedand if the Government do not accept amendments tomorrow, this House will have agreed to a Secretary of State in our Government having the power, by Order in Council, to amend and to repeal any Act of this Parliament and any Northern Ireland legislation. I do not in any way challenge the personal integrity of the current Secretary of State, but I would caution that the Bill not only hands any future Secretary of State the power to amend or repeal any legislation by Order in Council, but, if they deem it expedient, not even to have to bring it before this House, so there will be no scrutiny or transparency whatsoever. I do not think that any right hon. and hon. Members in this Chamber would countenance such a degree of Executive power being taken to a single Minister in any circumstancesyet we are not discussing emergency or counter-terrorist legislation, but an attempt to restore devolved Government in Northern Ireland.
	The aims of the Bill are laudable, but the means that the Government are adopting are deplorable. That brings me back to my argument about the christening of this new creature, the Assembly, which would have been better termed a forum or a talking shop. It strikes me that the Government have done something very clever. It is as if they were parents with two sonsperhaps I should say daughtersone of whom is very bright and the other not so bright. The parents choose to call both children by the same name, so that after a while the public do not know the difference between one and the other. I suspect that the Government have chosen deliberately to give the impression that this is the restored Assembly, but it is no such thingit is a toothless talking shop. It worries me considerably that the people of Northern Ireland are being led to believe that the Bill will lead to the restoration of something more powerful at Stormont, when that is clearly not going to happen. I urge the Government to listen very carefully to tomorrow's debate and to amend the Bill before it leaves this place.

Iris Robinson: I shall say only a few words and leave my colleagues to deal with the nitty-gritty of the measure and what the Assembly should be called and how it will be perceived, which the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) mentioned.
	I want to make a few comments about what I had the pleasure of saying in Killarney at the British-Irish Parliamentary Body meeting on Monday 24 April. My party is up for a fully functioning Assembly with Executive powers. It is in the interests of our people in Northern Ireland for locally elected representatives to make decisions on local issues that affect the everyday lives of Ulster people. We in the Democratic Unionist party are not the problem. The responsibility to step up to the plate lies with Sinn Fein-IRA.
	Too many families are still reeling from the freedom from serving their jail sentences given to murderers when the Belfast agreement was signed, coupled with broken promises, which the Prime Minister made in 1998. He promised that terrorists would not be in government or released from jail. The rest is history.
	The debate has covered most of the pertinent points about the Bill. I would simply like to say that Northern Ireland Members look forward to a time when they no longer have to live behind bullet-proof windows, which are installed in their homes along with panic buttons and cameras, or be driven by police escorts. Like my colleagues, I have grown-up childrenwhose ages range from 33 to 24and grandchildren, who are aged between 14 and six. They have never known normality and have always had to endure living in an abnormal setting.
	I therefore have a vested interest in seeing our long-suffering people, as well as my children and grandchildren, experience proper democratic institutions, which will tackle the genuine problems of the serious position of our health service, our educational future and the water charges, which are being foisted upon us.
	However, the caveat is that, when we make our decision in the DUP to go forward, we must ensure that the Assembly is made up of democrats, who are all equal under and subject to the law. No party should have at its disposal an army ready for action if Sinn Fein does not get its way.
	We must ensure that the victims of 35 years of terror are considered. Our party is mandated not to repeat the mistakes of the past in-and-out pantomime of an Assembly. We must get it right. That means Sinn Fein being democratised, with no more criminality and paramilitary activities connected directly or indirectly to it.
	We will play our full part in a devolved Administration if we are satisfied that all the players use only the weapon of argument.

Nigel Dodds: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson), who clearly set out the conditions under which the Democratic Unionist party would enter into Executive Government in Northern Ireland, as did my other right hon. and hon. Friends who have already spoken.
	I listened carefully to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). I am not sure whether her speech had been passed or endorsed by Cunningham house. How much of it will gain assent from the leadership of her party remains to be seen. Given her comments and her attitude todaysuggesting that she would divide the House on Second Reading if she were in a position to do soI wonder whether members of her party will turn up at Stormont to participate in the Assembly when it is called on 15 May.

Lady Hermon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nigel Dodds: No, because we have limited time and we have agreed sensibly to allow as many hon. Members as possible to speak by accepting a self-imposed time limit.
	The hon. Lady took some time to explain her difficulties with the proposals in the Bill. She railed against the Assembly that the measure sets up, but I wish that she and the wing of her party that so vehemently supported the Assembly that was set up in 1998, with all its fundamental flaws, including IRA-Sinn Fein in government without decommissioning, had expressed even one word of concern about it and its make-up. Had she done so, her complaints today would have had a bit more credibility. Likewise, had she and her colleagues on the wing of the party that she supports opposed the deferral of the election in May 2003, first for four weeks and then until the Novemberthey did not want it even thenher concern about the moving of the election date would have had more credibility.
	My party is happy to face the electorate at any time. We will face them quite happily in May 2007, because every time we have gone to the polls, they have endorsed our position and given us a clear mandate. We have no doubt that, when we face them againwe are happy to face them sooner rather than laterthey will once again give us a resounding mandate.
	I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Member for North Down said about executive power in the hands of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but I would remind her and those in the wing of the Ulster Unionist party that supports her that she supported the handing of full, untrammelled executive power to Ministers in the Northern Ireland Assemblyand to all-Ireland bodiesso that they could carry out enormous acts of damage to the people of Northern Ireland, to its economy and to its health and education systems, as evidenced by the decisions of Bairbre de Brun in a number of cases, and by Martin McGuinness over the 11-plus. So I am glad that a different approach is now being taken, but I shall wait and see whether it will be carried out in practice.
	On the matter before us today, the Secretary of State said that there would be serious consequences if the parties involved did not carry out their mandate and act maturely. This party has certainly been elected on a mandate to try to bring about devolution. We were devolutionists when other parties in the Unionist community were fully fledged integrationists that did not want Stormont or any kind of local accountability whatever. There is no doubting our devolutionist credentials. However, our mandate also states that devolution must be based on sound democratic principles, and must involve a complete end to paramilitarism, terrorism, violence and criminality, along with certain changes to the Belfast agreement. I shall not rehearse all those points, because my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) and others have already outlined that mandate.
	We have come a long way, in regard to not only the change in the circumstances on the ground in Northern Ireland, but the attitude of the parties and of right hon. and hon. Members. We are now talking about the need for absolute clarity and certainty, and for the completion of the transformation of the paramilitary groups into exclusively peaceful democratic entities, and I am glad that the policies that we put forward for many years, from 1998 and before, are now widely accepted. Everyone in the House now says that the IRA must completely end all criminality, terrorism and paramilitary activity.
	Indeed, the Prime Minister talked in his famous Custom House speech about acts of completion. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) has talked about adopting a Blairite approach to these matters, but I think that it is the other way round. The Prime Minister has adopted a Democratic Unionist party approach, and that approach is working. It is delivering, and our party deserves credit for that. Previously, the Ulster Unionist party was prepared to go along with the policy that stated, Bring Sinn Fein and the IRA in and give them positions in government, and they will learn to be democrats. Well, we said that that would not work, and it did not. We said that they would want to have their cake and eat it, and that people would suffer as a result.
	The approach that we are now taking demands that, before Sinn Fein-IRA can come anywhere near the Government of Northern Ireland, there has to be a complete end to criminality, terrorism and paramilitary activity and a complete transformation to democracy, with certainty and clarity. That is the right approach, and we must keep working at it. It is delivering, and it is the sound and sensible way to proceed.
	As far as the work of the Assembly is concerned, I welcome the opportunity for elected representatives in Northern Ireland to debate and discuss matters of deep concern, but we will want the Government to respond to their views. It is essential that the Secretary of State does not proceed with contentious legislation and change. If he does, that will ultimately act as a major disincentive to the restoration of devolution. Many people will say, Even if we have devolution back, we will not be able to change some of these matters of vital concern to our people. I urge him, in the interests of his project to restore devolution, not to proceed with some of the more contentious matters mentioned in the House.
	There are issues of concern. The IMC report published today had the inevitable spin and hype prior to publication. We have had some selective quotes from the report even today in the House. Of course, we welcome the progress made, but we want more progress so that there is completion. There are major issues, such as the retention of guns. It is now clear that guns have been retained, the report says, without the authorisation of the leadership. Surely we cannot just leave it at that. Something has to be done about it. If members of an organisation are acting outside their authority, we should at least expect the leadership to do something about them. Is it okay simply to say, That was without the authority of the leadership? Is it all right if the IRA has now moved from a centralised structure to a federal structure? For the people living in Markethill and elsewhere in South Armagh, Fermanagh and Tyrone along the border, or in my constituency, it will be of little comfort to say that the guns held by the local IRA are not authorised by the brigade headquarters in Belfast, but just by the local IRA commanders. We must grasp that. Movement on that issue will be needed if we are to see progress.
	On criminality, I listened to what the IRA said over Easter, and I have listened to it being praised today about that matter. Let us remember that as far as the IRA is concerned, any act that it carries out in pursuance of its objectives cannot be criminal. It is easy for it to condemn criminality, because it does not regard anything that it does as criminal, even to the extent that, as Mitchell McLaughlin famously said, the terrible atrocity of the kidnap and savage murder of Jean McConville, who was then buried for decades, and about which the IRA lied, was not a crime in its eyes, and is still not regarded as a crime by Sinn Fein-IRA. We need to be careful about those matters.
	The people of Northern Ireland know how the IRA operates; they know its theology and thinking and how it will interpret everything according to the letter of its constitution and values. Those of us on the ground must judge what it is up to and what it is about. It is important that we do not make the mistakes that were made in the past but that we bring the IRA to the point of completion and bring about a permanent and irreversible transformation to democratic politics. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) has made it clear that if we reach that point, we can make real progress, and we will not shy away from the commitments that we have made. Until we reach that point, however, we will stand firm in the interests of democracy.

William McCrea: Some time ago, our party released a document called Facing Reality. This House is beginning to face some realities, because when I was previously a Member, prior to 1997, many Members did not want to know the realities of the situation in Northern Ireland or of the suffering of the Unionist people and did not want to deal with the IRA. They were closing their eyes to acts of republican terrorism, often because they wanted to keep the trouble in Northern Irelandas long as it stayed off the streets of London and the mainland, and did not affect them, that was acceptable. There was a famous statement about the acceptable level of violence.
	My party is desirous of the restoration of devolution in Northern Ireland, with Ministers who are democrats dealing with and taking decisions on day-to-day issues in Northern Ireland. There is great distrust, however, and no one can close their eyes to that.
	I agree with the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). We have no intention of misleading the Ulster people. We are going to tell it exactly as it is to them and to the Secretary of State and the Ministers concerned, before and on 24 November. We are not going to shadow-box with anyone: we will tell people the realities of the situation. Even when we have suffered in electoral terms, we have never misled the general public, and we are not going to mislead them now.
	I certainly know the realities of how obnoxious it is to sit in a council with those who have been totally wedded to terrorismfor example, one of the three most wanted men in Northern Ireland. The only poster naming three   wanted men appeared in what was then my constituencyin Magherafelt, which was in the constituency of Mid-Ulster. Those three persons were Dominic McGlinchey, who was murdered by the IRA when he fell out with it; Francis Hughes, who went on hunger strike, fell out with himself and decided to take his own life; and Ian Milne.
	The reality of the situationwhat the House does not realiseis that the third most wanted man sits in Magherafelt district council at this moment. He has never been brought to court. It seems to me that there has been a cover-up. I know that a family who believe that he was responsible for the murder of the Speers family are horrified that he is sitting in that council untouched. Another councillor is a famous gunman; another is a famous IRA bomber. These people are sitting in the council in which I have to sit. They destroy, demean and soil democracy, and we cannot close our eyes to the realities of the situation.
	I say this clearly: democratic institutions must be built on a solid foundation. It is no use building them on sand; there must be a rock foundation of democracy, integrity and honesty. There can be no equivocation on terrorism and those who are inextricably linked to terrorist organisations. If we want the democratic institution to succeed, those who are engaged in it must be unreservedly opposed to all terrorism and the retention of all terrorist structures. We need to see the dismantling of those structuresnot just the disbanding of the IRA, but the dismantling of the structures of terror, and the removal of all the teeth of warif we are to move forward in a democratic fashion.
	Sinn Fein and the IRA are inextricably linked. They are one and the same. That has not changed. It is no use the House closing its eyes to that: at this moment, it is still the reality. Over the past 30 years, Sinn Fein and the IRA have turned on and turned off violence whenever it has suited them. Yes, there has been a change. Let us be honest. As my colleagues have rightly said, the demands of our party, standing resolutely against Sinn Fein-IRA in the past, have certainly brought them to the realisation that they will not wipe the eye of the Ulster electorate or the Ulster people. But we are resolved to do what we promised to do. We will honour the principles that we set out at the time of the election: we will not go back on the principles that we put before the electorate. Yes, 9/11 produced changes, because Sinn Fein-IRA knew that, internationally, they could not go back to what they did best. But we must face the reality: up to this moment, Sinn Fein and the IRA are inextricably linked.
	The impression has been given that the IMC report somehow gives a clean bill of health, and that somehow democrats can walk arm in arm with those who have been responsible for some of the most heinous crimes, not only in the past but in the present. We cannot close our eyes to the murder in Dublin of Joseph Rafferty by the IRA. We cannot close our eyes to Robert McCartney's murder. We cannot close our eyes to the murder of Denis Donaldson. We need to know exactly who was responsible and, if the IRA is found guilty, the IRA and its colleagues must pay the price of their compliance and their activity in terrorism. The report clearly rings alarm bells. Even after all the attempts at a whitewash, some members of that organisationincluding senior onesare still involved in crimes such as fuel laundering, money laundering, extortion, tax evasion and smuggling. Imagine anyone suggesting that we should have such people in this House or in government!

Jim Devine: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

William McCrea: No. I have only a short time in which to make my speech.
	Can anyone imagine the howls from the community if it were suggested that such people should be put on the Front Bench of Her Majesty's Government or Opposition? If they were, they would be run out of this House and society would disgrace them completely, and rightly so. A few statements from those who are still linked to activities such as money laundering, fuel laundering, extortion, tax evasion and smuggling are not going to whitewash their compliance in what has been going on. Where is the 20 million linked to the IRA? Where are the disappearedthose who may have been murdered, whose families are still waiting for them to come home? Are we closing our eyes to all this? Are we closing our ears to the cry from such families that these issues must be faced up to?
	We must have consistency, integrity and honesty. Neither I nor any of my colleagues is going to mislead the people. The right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) stated todayit is on the record of this Housethat, although the IMC report acknowledges that progress has been made, there is still a long way to go. I agree wholeheartedly with that statement, which is factual: there is still a long way to go. We must ensure that our democracy has integrity. When we set up a Government of Northern Ireland, they have to be based solely and completely on democratic lines. There can be no equivocation or trying to move the goalposts. We cannot have those who are democrats by day and terrorists by nightthat day has long passed. There were those in the past who accepted such people into government, but this party will not.
	Sinn Fein-IRA stand at a crossroads: they must make the choice and come up to the mark. If they do not take that decision, true democratssuch as Members representing the Social, Democratic and Labour party, my own party and otherswho want to move forward should do so together. Northern Ireland should not be crucified because of terrorists or those who want to play along with terrorism. We want a democratic process and democratic government, and by the grace of God, that we will have.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I welcome this Bill, which is a means to an end, not an end in itself. I understand the concerns raised by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), but the Ulster Unionist party has in the past supported the establishment of talking shops. Indeed, it was its former leader who proposed the establishment of the Northern Ireland Forum for Political Dialogue, and I do not recall it raising major objections to such a body. We hope that the Assembly will move quickly to address issues that are doubtless of as much concern to the constituents of the hon. Member for North Down as they are to mine. Even if, initially, we are only talking about those issues, that is better than sitting on our hands while direct rule Ministers take decisions that we disagree with strongly. I hope that we can reach a consensus on some of these issues quickly, and that the Government will act on that basis. We want a devolved Government to be restored in Northern Ireland as quickly as possible.

Lady Hermon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I will not, because some of my hon. Friends want to get in before the debate concludes.
	This has been a long journey, the beginning of which it would probably be difficult to find. In 1994, there was the first IRA ceasefire, moving through to the agreement in 1998. It has been a difficult and challenging time to be involved in politics in Northern Ireland. We have seen many false dawns, but the promise of peace remains and we want to reach out and grasp it. It is the hope of every sane, reasonable and law-abiding person in Northern Ireland that our generation realises the hope of peace and political stability. I echo the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson) that we want to move out beyond the cocoon of security and looking over our shoulders in which we have had to live for years. We want to look forward to a future that is free from violence and the organised criminality that we have seen all too often in the past.
	We have had the Assembly since 1998, and it has been suspended on at least four occasions. We have got to get it right this time, because if we re-establish the Assembly and get a fully functioning devolved Administration and it collapses again, it will be years before it is restored and the hopes of the people of Northern Ireland will be dashed. That is why my party is committed to getting it absolutely right.
	The Government talk of deadlines: we prefer to speak of acts of completion, as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) mentioned. He repeated what the Prime Minister said. We want completion and closure on what has become known as the troubles. I know that, for many people, closure is difficult. Their lives have been ruined and destroyed by acts of terrorism, on both sides of the community. However, from speaking to them, I know that it would give them some comfort to know that other families will not suffer what they have endured. Indeed, that is my objective. If I were asked what is the one thing that I want to achieve in my political career, it would be that no other family has to suffer what has been visited upon so many families in Northern Ireland over the past 35 years. If I can help to achieve that, I will feel that my political career has been fulfilled. That is my objective and I can say with honesty that it is the objective of all of my hon. Friends, and especially of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), the leader of our party. I know that he wants to see that happen, but we want to be sure that it is for real and for good.
	That objective is why the decisions that we have to take as a party will not be taken in isolation. We will take them in consultation with the community that we represent and the people who have mandated us to achieve a better future for them and for their children. Earlier this week, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) made it clear in his contribution to the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body that, when the time comes that we feel that there is the potential to move forward to full devolution, we will consult and we will talk to the people whom we represent. We are not arrogant. We will not move so far ahead of our people that we do not bring them with us.
	It is crucial to achieving political stability in Northern Ireland that leaders bring their people with them. We have evidence in the past few years of the inability of some Unionist leaders to bring their people with them, and we know what happened to them. The results of that are very apparent on these Benches today. This party will not allow that to happen. Yes, we will provide leadershipit will be provided ably by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim and my colleagues herebut we are determined to bring our people with us. If we do that, we have a better chance of making things work for the future. At the end of the day, it is the people who count.
	I say to the hon. Member for North Down that we have no fear of elections. We are prepared and ready for the elections in May 2007. Bring them on. This party will gain and benefit from those elections and we are prepared to go to the people and test our mandate again. I have no doubt that we will get a strong endorsement for that mandate.
	Earlier, the Secretary of State asked whether the Democratic Unionist party was committed to making this measure work. Many people have asked the same question. Are we committed to achieving the establishment of a devolved Administration in Northern Ireland that is based on inclusivity but underpinned by the fundamentals of democracy and the rule of law? Our answer is a resounding yes: we are absolutely committed to making this work, because we have fought so hard to get to where we are today and we want to complete the journey.
	We want to achieve the end that I have described, but we also want to make sure that it is absolutely right, because the future of the people whom we represent hangs on the decisions that we make. We will be careful and cautious, but courageous too, because that is what leadership is about. When we come to make those decisions, we will want to ensure that they are right, and that the people with whom we will be in government are committed to peace, democracy and the rule of law. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea) said, that must mean that a complete end is put to criminality and paramilitarism.
	We say that not because we want to put obstacles in people's way, but because we want to encourage them to complete the journey. The strategy is working and has brought the results that are evident in today's IMC report. We acknowledge the progress that has been made, but we also know that the journey is not yet complete.
	If I am not yet absolutely confident that the IRA has completed the journey, that it now supports the rule of law and that it will abide by the democratic rules, I believe that it is on its way to doing so. It is difficult to assess how far down the road it has come, but I believe that it has recognised that there is no going back to the bad old days. Yes, some IRA members may hark back to those times but most know that going back to the violence of the past, and to bombing, shooting and murder on the scale evident in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, would amount to political suicide. They are right.
	We want the Assembly established by the Bill to make progress towards the restoration of a full, devolved Administration in Northern Ireland. We are committed to achieving that objective, in the right time scale and based on an assessment that the violence, criminality and paramilitarism are over for good.I hope that people will take us at our word when we say that.
	Yesterday, I had the privilege of leading a delegation to meet the Secretary of State at Stormont to discuss the impact of industrial rates on our manufacturing sector. The delegation was made up of people from both sides of the community, both traditions, in Northern Ireland. They are all fine people, and they are making a massive contribution to rebuilding our economy after decades of destruction.
	The delegation was accompanied by an all-party group representing the main political parties in Northern Ireland. The group spoke with one voice when it asked the Government to freeze the industrial rates,   because otherwise they would damage our manufacturing base and our ability to make a full economic recovery.
	I hope that the Secretary of State will listen to ourmessage, because the Government have said consistently that that is what they will do if we can achieve a political consensus. Consensus is what the Assembly ought to be about, and we will seek to achieve it in respect of the other issues that will be referred to us. However, the Secretary of State must listen to what people are saying.
	I know that a big stick can be applied on a range of issues, although I accept that some carrots exist as well. However, when people reach agreement, it is incumbent on the Government to respond positively. That is the best and most encouraging way to help us along the road to the end of our journey. I hope that the result will be peace and stability for all the people of Northern Ireland.

Sammy Wilson: I, too, will seek to abide by the time-sharing arrangements that have all-party support here today.
	I suppose that there has not been a great deal of rancour, or difference, in the debate, although I suspect that in some speeches there was an underlying tendency to point the finger at Unionists as if they were still the obstacle to devolution. We have had the Secretary of State talking about people needing to act maturely. We have had the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) talking, I think specifically to our party, about taking leaps of faith. We have seen other parties take leaps time and again with Sinn Fein. They jumped into the darkness and they paid for it. We have no intention of taking such a leap of faith with people who we believe to be untrustworthy.
	However, although some may argue that we of all parties least need devolution, having 40 per cent. of the representation at council level in Northern Ireland and 50 per cent. of representation here at Westminster, we have been to the forefront of promoting devolution. The fact that the Bill is before us is probably a result of the pressure that this party has put on the Government to recognise that in a situation where, as has been described very adequately in today's debate, one party does not have respect for law and orderindeed, breaks the rules of society on a frequent basisand yet wishes to be included in Government, it is impossible to move directly into a situation where people like that are included in Executive positions.
	Facing that realityour document was called Facing Realitywe put to the Government ideas by which we could move towards devolution, in circumstances where there would be a useful job of work for people who are elected in Northern Ireland to take decisions and make representations on the things that affect their constituents daily, and ease our way towards the position where, eventually, full-blown devolution would be possible.
	Facing Reality also made it clear that there had to be changes to the Belfast agreement. We have a mandate for those changes. I know that the SDLP does not like the fact that the political landscape has changed in Northern Ireland, that the mandate that may have been given to pro-agreement parties in 1998 no longer exists, certainly on the Unionist side, and that there has to be a recognition that changes are needed; not just to satisfy the Unionist population but to ensure that there is a system of devolution that does not stumble from crisis to crisis and that does Unionists, nationalists or anyone some good. Some of our suggestions were included in the comprehensive agreement. I know that the members of the SDLP did not like that because they were not involved in the comprehensive agreement, but I believe that many of those changes will be essential to the good working of any Assembly if and when it is up and running.

Mark Durkan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sammy Wilson: I would have been more than happy to, but because of the time constraint I will not. If we could have extended the debate beyond 7 o'clock, I would have been able to give way.
	Several arguments have been made today as to why we should move towards devolution. The first is that the IRA have moved. The IMC report today indicates that   they have moved. We have had substantial decommissioning last summer, and we accept that that has happened. But as has been pointed out, the IRA are moving because the tactics used against them have changed. Instead of giving them rewards, sanctions are being imposed. In the past, we were told that if we put them into government, they would behave. The DUP tactic is to deny them a place in government and make them behave. In the past, we were told that if we turned a blind eye to their activities perhaps they would move away from them; now, through the combined efforts of our party and others, the security forces are going after their criminal empires and putting on the pressure. While that is going on, why should we lift the pressure? Why should we go back to the old, failed methods and give them rewards?
	We want the task completed. In six months' time, I want to be able to say that the behaviour of Sinn Fein and the IRA has changed dramatically. That would be good for my constituents and good for Northern Ireland and its economy. If and when those changes arrive, the leader of my party, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), our deputy leader, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), and other speakers have made it clear that the political landscape will have changed.
	Like the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), we believe that there are benefits from devolution. The second argument in favour of devolution is that we could take our own decisions. Some people have painted a realistic picture; there would be hard decisions to make but at least we would be making them on behalf of our constituents, with at least a degree of accountability. However, there are some political quacks around. They can be found in some of the pro-agreement parties and lobby groups pushing for devolution. They present devolution as a panacea, through which all the hard decisions will disappear; all the pain will suddenly be relieved and there will be no tough political decisions to make. That is not the case. Anybody who sells devolution on those grounds is a charlatan. They are political quacks and they will come unstuck. There are hard political decisions to make. Some of the things we are discussing did not start only after the Assembly fell; for example, the big increase in rates was known as the Durkan tax after the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Durkan).

Mark Durkan: I remind the hon. Gentleman that before devolution, the comprehensive spending review under direct rule had projected increases over a three-year period of 7 per cent. a year on domestic rates and 6 per cent. a year on business rates. Under devolution, when I was Minister of Finance and Personnel, succeeded by Sean Farren, domestic rates were 7 per cent., 7 per cent., and 6 per cent. while business rates were 3.3 per cent., 3.3 per cent. and 3.3 per cent.

Sammy Wilson: So it was a Farren tax. Of course, it covered the infrastructure for water and sewerage, which are now paid for on top.

Mark Durkan: rose

Sammy Wilson: No, I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman's earlier intervention was quite short. I remember having to listen to him explaining such things in the Northern Ireland Assembly and it used to take him about an hour and a half.
	Another argument is that devolution will be a magic wand to help us get through all the pain. Some of the hard things we are experiencing originated under the old devolution settlement. The structure of the previous Assembly meant that decisions were made by Ministers who were wholly unaccountable. They imposed changes, such as those in education, with which we are still struggling.
	If the interim step that we hope will lead to full devolution is to be effective, I believe that it is essential that Members realise that there is a job to be done. That means that the Secretary of StateI am pleased to see him back in his placemust listen to the representations that Members make. Otherwise, they will feel that the Assembly that has been established is a useless body.
	It has been suggested that any legislation or Orders in Council currently in preparation should not apply until at least 24 November. I recognise that that is also a rod to beat the back of people such as myself. As we come up to 24 November, I well recognise the threat that Orders in Council can be introduced if devolution does not come about. Nevertheless, I am prepared to live with that because I believe that it is important, if any value is to be attached to devolved institutions in Northern Ireland in the longer term, that the people of Northern Ireland know that all the decisions that they hate and loathe have not been taken before devolution is set up. There should be a disincentive to push such measures forward and ram them through the House.
	I implore the Secretary of State to understand that we wish to move towards devolution. We want the necessary decisions to be taken, however difficult the context, but they can be taken only when parties behave democratically, associate themselves with the police and law and order and pursue criminality. When those conditions are met, we are happy to have devolution. Until then, I hope that the Secretary of State will allow the Assembly to do a real job of work.

David Simpson: I have listened with great interest to the debate and know that all my colleagues have made valid points. I have never had the privilege or the opportunitywhatever word one wishes to useof sitting in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
	I listened to the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), who used the word tantalising. Well, when it comes to a three-course meal or a large steak[Interruption.] Yes, I have many of them and I would probably refer to them as tantalising, but I have to say that the prospect of going into the Assembly on 15 May is not tantalising for me. It is not tantalising because I will probably be sitting across the room from an individual who gave the authority for four of my family to be assassinated. It may well be hard for hon. Members who have not experienced such circumstances to understand, but it will be very difficult for me. My party has taken the decision to go in on 15 May and I will join it because I believe that it has a lot to offer the people of Northern Ireland.
	We all know about the other Unionist party and its leadership, which led the Unionist population in the wrong direction. I am living proof that the Unionist population does not suffer fools gladly, which is why I took the seat in Upper Bann. We often hear the old clich from Sinn Fein-IRA that they have a mandate, and we also hear them saying that the Democratic Unionist party is not serious about anything. They say that we are not serious about trying to get an Assembly up and running and, to use the words of Gerry Adams or Martin McGuinness, that the DUP does not want a Fenian about the place. Those are their words, not mine.
	I have sat in meetingsin fact, at Leeds Castlewhen my right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) told the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I am not asking for anything for myself that I am not asking for my Roman Catholic neighbour. That is a fact; my party is about representing all the people in our constituencies. So the nonsense that Sinn Fein come out with is just a myth.
	I refer to family tragedy and many of my colleagues could relate to family tragedies and those involving others connected to their families, but let us remember that we must consult the victims and convince them that it is time to move on. That will be very difficult. My hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) and I are the chair and vice-chair of our party's victims organisation. We talk to victims on a weekly and monthly basis and we hear the stories that come from those peoplethe tragedies and the heartbreakand it will be very hard for them to move on. But as a constructive party that will show leadership, it is our job to talk to those people and to convince them that it is time to move on. That will be difficult, but I believe that those people must be helped through that painful time.
	Another of my concerns is that we talk about Sinn Fein-IRA coming on to different bodies and structures in government. For example, if Sinn Fein-IRA decided that they would go on to the Policing Board today, in reality, what information could the Chief Constable release in a Policing Board meeting that would not be passed on, possibly to some of their colleagues?

Iris Robinson: The dissidents.

David Simpson: We have talked about the dissidents, which is a lose word. Such information must not be passed on to benefit terrorismSlab Murphy and the rest of them up in south Armaghso we have a difficulty. I used the word tantalising earlier; the word that we need to emphasise is trust. That is a big factor in setting up the Northern Ireland Assembly.
	I sat in my own council meeting on Monday night, and when I referred to the bomb in Lurgan, a Sinn Fein-IRA representative stood up and said, The bomb should not have happened, and I would ask those in the Lurgan area to stop it. However, when I put the question through the mayor to ask the Sinn Fein-IRA representative to tell his people to go to the PSNI station in Lurgan and give all the information that the police need to collect a lot more of those people, there was silence; and we are talking about moving to a full-blown Executive or whatever come 24 November. There is a long, long way to go. If it was wrongmy hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) used words to this effectto put murderers, drug dealers, paramilitaries or child killers or whatever into government last year, it is wrong this year. There is no difference, because they have not yet changed.
	I want to move on in the time that is left to my portfolio as my party's trade and industry spokesman. I have been involved in the business community for some 25 years. My hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley referred to leading a delegation yesterday to meet the Secretary of State. I had the privilege yesterday, along with other hon. Members, to attend that conference and I had been asked to speak there. I am sure that the Secretary of State has been briefed on what I have said about him in the newsletter. I am sure that he is not very happy about it. Basically, I said that, if the Secretary of State were the boss or the chief executive of a firm, he would be sacked. That is because of the de-rating issue and the difficulties that the business community is going through.
	I count it a privilege to be elected to this House. Having been involved in the business community for 20 or 25 years, I knew a lot of the business people who gathered together yesterday. I would like to think that, in my capacity in this House, I could use my influence to try to help those business people who have come through 35 years of the most hellish conditions, through the troubles and through financial difficulties.
	The Secretary of State may throw the responsibility back, as he is prone to do, and say, Get the Executive up and running and deal with the whole de-rating issue and all the other issues. However, with the greatest respect, it is within his power to do something about the situation now.   The manufacturing and textile communities are decimated. Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley, I ask the Secretary of State to look seriously at doing something about that.

Peter Hain: I received a delegation, as the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) mentioned, and it was impressive. The arguments that were mounted were cogent and well presented and I have said that I will seriously consider them. The argument was for a freeze at the present level. I have also said that I would be happy to refer the matter to the Assemblyin the form that that is about to happenfor its own consideration, as well, and would take note of what was said there.

David Simpson: I thank the Secretary of State. May I finish by saying[Interruption.] We will negotiate after this debate.

Patrick Cormack: The Secretary of State is on probation.

David Simpson: We will arrange an interview.
	In conclusion, I personally want to see things move on in Northern Ireland. As I have mentioned in the House before on many occasions, I adopted three children to bring them into this country and to try to give them a better life. I want to see that happen; I want it to happen for all the young people in Northern Ireland, irrespective of the community they come from. They are the next generation and how the next generation operates is going to dictate the future of Northern Ireland. I wish that for all the people of Northern Ireland. I know that the leadership of my party wishes it and I will certainly do everything in my power to assist that.

Laurence Robertson: We have had an extremely interesting debate on yet another Northern Ireland Bill, which was, yet again, introduced in reasonable tones by the Secretary of State, who, if I may be permitted to say so, made a number of telling and important points. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) set out clearly and movingly our views and difficulties, but also our hopes for this Bill's capacity to achieve devolution and a peaceful future for Northern Ireland. Those are my views as well. I have never made any secret of the fact that eight years ago I voted against a number of aspects of the Belfast agreement, but one of the things that I was enthusiastic about was devolution. I remain hopeful that we can set up the Assembly again.
	We have heard a number of contributions from right hon. and hon. Members, which I shall run through fairly quickly. The right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr.   Murphy) feels that it would be disastrous if the process did not succeed. He said that he felt very uncomfortable as a direct rule Minister. When I work on the many statutory instrumentsas I do seemingly almost every day at the momentI too feel uncomfortable, so I well understand what he feels, and means. I share his hopes for the Assembly.
	The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), who serves on most, if not all, of those Committees with me, wondered whether this year's Assembly would be able to change some of the decisions made by order of the Secretary of State, so perhaps the Minister will respond to that point. He also made the good point that the shifting of deadlines in the past is perhaps not helpful now, and I am sure that the Government will take that on board. He also made an important point about what will happen if the Assembly does not get up and running and full devolution is not restoredI hope very much that it will be restored. Although I know that the Government have taken steps to address the situation, we cannot go on governing Northern Ireland as we are doing. I hope that we can move forward through devolution and the Assembly, but if that is not possible, we need to redouble our efforts to find a better way of governing the Province.
	The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) regrets that the Bill does not go further, and opposes giving the Secretary of State the power to delay the elections from 2007 to 2008. As I indicated in an intervention on the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), I am concerned about that measure and have tabled an amendment that will give us the opportunity to discuss it tomorrow. I understand that the Government are saying that if the Assembly is not up and running until November, we may not want to disrupt things so quickly. That is a rather pessimistic view, because the Assembly may be up and running again by Maywe all hope that it will bein which case elections in 2007 would not come too quickly. However, we can explore that matter in a bit more detail tomorrow.
	I welcome the enthusiasm for the Bill of the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) in his typically robust speech. It is important to note that he paid tribute to the Members of the Legislative Assembly and the work that they have done. He correctly pointed out that it was not the democratic constitutional parties that needed to change, but the IRA.
	The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson) said that he was probably the only person in the House, other than those from Northern Ireland, who had had a mandate from Northern Ireland. He has recently served on many Northern Ireland Committees.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, sensibly called for there to be no more unnecessary statutory instruments before the Assembly is up and running. He also expressed worry about setting deadlines, and said that this particular deadline should perhaps be the end of the year. The hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) talked about trust and having a vision for the future.
	The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) made the important point that there should be no joint sovereignty if things fail by 24 November. I know that the Secretary of State has tried to play down several reports on the comments that he is supposed to have made, but I was in America at the time and heard reports about those comments. The Secretary of State suggested in his statement to the House last week that even if the Assembly is not up and running by 24 November, there should be a strengthening of cross-border bodies. I would be worried if we had the one without the other.
	The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) said how important it was for Northern Ireland to have an Assembly, and made a comparison with London and the London Mayor. I am not sure that I approve of the analogy, but think that I know what was she was getting at. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) made the good and important point that Sinn Fein needs to change its mode of behaviour to enable any support for the police to be credible.
	I apologise that unfortunately, I missed the speech by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) because I had to slip out of the Chamber for a few moments. I understand that he gave strong support to the Good Friday agreement and said that there was a need to preserve it.
	I have already touched on the speech made by the hon. Member for North Down. She objected to the postponement of the scheduled elections and to the fact that the Bill gives the Secretary of State more power. A consistent theme of several recent Bills has been the inclusion of a clause that allows the Secretary of State to change many things. I share the hon. Lady's concern, but perhaps we can discuss that in more detail in Committee tomorrow.
	The hon. Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson) made a good point, which I endorse, that it is not the DUP that needs to change, but the people who are in the way of democratic government in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) wants the Government to respond to the views expressed by the elected representatives of Northern Ireland. That isextremely important, given the significance of legislation that has recently been passed by order. Last week, for example, the number of councils was reduced from 26 to seven, with the support of Sinn Fein alone among the political parties. If the Assembly, once it is up and running, does not find that acceptable, I hope that the Secretary of State will take note of its opinion.
	The hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea) rightly said that the institutions must be based on democracy and that the Assembly must be built on rock, not sand. That is a very important statement to make. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) said that in future he does not want any family to suffer what families have previously suffered. Everyone in the House should share that objective. He expressed a determination to make the process work. I have known him for many years, not only as a political colleague but as a close friend, and I know that that is the case. The hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) called for a sustainable Assembly, not one that is likely to falter. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) spoke about the difficulty of having to work with someone who authorised the assassination of four members of his family. It is hard for me to appreciate how difficult that is, but I admire his courage and determination to do so, to make the process work.
	As I said at the outset, I have served on many Delegated Legislation and Northern Ireland Bill Committees. Almost every day this week, and last week, I attended such Committees. Goodness knows what will happen when we return next week, but there is a Delegated Legislation Committee the Tuesday after bank holiday Monday. That is a most unsatisfactory way of deciding policies and legislation for Northern Ireland. When the Assembly is up and running, it must be allowed to discuss those important issues. It must be worth while, or it will falter, which is not what I want, and I do not think it is what anyone in the House wants.
	When we ask Unionist parties to serve in the Assembly and, more particularly, on the Executive it is important to ensure that they are dealing with people who have given up violence entirely. The Independent Monitoring Commission report has been discussed today, and without seeking to be negative, I want to deal with a couple of points that it makes. Paragraph 2.12 states:
	We noted however that PIRA continued to engage in intelligence gathering, predominantly to support the political strategy.
	That intelligence gathering was predominantlynot entirelyto support the political strategy, and the IMC believed that it
	was authorised by the leadership and involved senior members.
	That is a worrying phrase. The report goes on to say:
	Some senior members were also involved in money laundering and other crime.
	That, too, is worrying. Paragraph 2.15 discusses a crime that was committed and says:
	We think nevertheless that PIRA did seek to secure the departure from the area of one of the families involved in the dispute.
	In other words, the Provisional IRA sought to move families out of the area. The report continues:
	We also believe that in a separate incident PIRA itself may have been associated with the forced departure of somebody from the area where he lived.
	Such activity should have endedwe were told that it hadbut according to the IMC, that is not the case.

Gordon Banks: The IMC report published today makes the point that the majority of forced exiles are made by loyalists, not republicans.

Laurence Robertson: I do not disagree, but those people are not represented by a political party that will assume Government office in Northern Ireland. I am not trying to be negative, as I have a point to make. The report goes on to say that
	there are indications that some members, including some senior ones . . . are still involved in crime.
	The report lists those crimes. It is unfair to expect law-abiding constitutional politicians from the Unionist community and from the SDLP to sit alongside people who are supposedly politicians by day, but are terrorists by night.
	A further point concerns me. About two years ago I had a discussion with Seamus Mallon, a respected former Member of this House and also a former Deputy First Minister. He said that in his area Sinn Fein had 200 paid activists. Where did that money come from? The Minister who is to respond to the debate has a respectable majority of just over 6,000, but how would he like it if there were 200 paid activists in his constituency trying to get rid of him? That is not fair politics, and it must be addressed, alongside the fact that Unionist and SDLP politicians are being asked to work with people who might be engaging in violence and terrorist activities at night. It is not fair. If that is not tackled, the Assembly will fail, and I do not want to see that happen.

Patrick Cormack: Not only is the situation that my hon. Friend outlines manifestly unfair; it would be illegal.

Laurence Robertson: Totally illegal, as my hon. Friend observes.
	I shall close now, to give the Minister a chance to respond to the many points that have been made by right hon. and hon. Members. I finish where I started. I wish the Assembly well. I hope it gets up and running. In order to succeed, it needs to discuss meaningful matters. It must be built on rock, rather than on sand. It has to be sustainable and, over and above anything else, it must be filled with Members who are wholly and exclusively committed to democratic means.

David Hanson: The debate has been largely good-tempered, which I cannot often say about Northern Ireland debates in the House. From all parts of the House we have had a positive and constructive debate. We even had a voluntary agreement on time sharing, which is a positive step. I hope it will lead to power sharing in due course. We even had something that we do not often have on Northern Ireland business: the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) engaged in normal politics, talking about matters such as taxation and expenditure. I hope that ultimately the Assembly will also get back to discussing such topics.
	The message from today's excellent debate has been clear. Now is the time for parties in Northern Ireland to demonstrate leadership by going back into the Assembly to form an Executive and a Government in due course. I am heartened by the way that the parties approached the debate, by the positive response to the Bill that we heard from all parts of the House, and by the constructive attitude of hon. Members towards the potential establishment of the Assembly.
	I thank the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr.Lidington) for the support of the official Opposition for the Government's proposals. I thank the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) for the support of the Liberal Democrats. I thank the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), who approached the debate with a positive, constructive attitude. I pay tribute to him. It is the first time, I think, that he has spoken in a debate since his 80th birthday. He seems to be reinvigorated on every occasion that he speaks in the House. I wish him well in his continued deliberations on these matters.
	I pay tribute to the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), the Chair of the Select Committee, who also approached the debate in a positive way, as have Members from all parts of the House who spoke today. It is heartening that everyone who took part in the debate spoke in favour of devolution for the people of Northern Ireland. The only argument has been about the conditions and about how and when that will occur. All sides accept the principle of devolution. The Bill is about how we achieve it.
	That is important for the reason given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy). As a previous Secretary of State, he knows better than anybody else, apart from my right hon. Friend the current Secretary of State, the difficulties of managing devolution as a direct-rule Minister. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), the right hon. Member for North Antrim and the hon. Members for Foyle, for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) and for South Down (Mr. McGrady) have said, when I deal with Northern Ireland business, I do so as a Member of Parliament who is elected in Wales with a 6,500 majoritymy majority has reduced over the past few years due to factors outside my control. I speak on behalf of the Government, but there are no crosses against my party's name, and, unlike Assembly Members, I do not have the mandate of being removable by the people of Northern Ireland.
	Today's debate and the discussions that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has conducted outside this Chamber about the potential for devolution show that there are real grounds for optimism and that real efforts have been made to make the Assembly operate positively and constructively. Although I recognise the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) about the different nature of the Assembly, I hope that we will move quickly to the permanent restoration mentioned by the hon. Member for Foyle. There is an overwhelming wish in Northern Ireland for devolution to occur and for the parties to co-operate, but I do not underestimate the challenges that the parties face.
	I have listened to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson), and I know about the contributions that the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea) has made in the past, so I know that those Members' constituents have faced challenges, tragedies and terrorist acts every day for the past 30 years and more. As hon. Members have said, I know that it is difficult for them to enter a coalition with people who have undertaken the type of acts to which the hon. Member for Upper Bann has referred. In my view, however, it is the best possible option for the future of Northern Ireland for those people to work together with the civil service to manage the billions of pounds of expenditure in Northern Ireland. That money is being provided by the British Government and distributed by British Ministers, but there are local priorities, and I think it is important that we consider that point.
	In setting out the challenge of devolution in simple, straightforward terms, I am not seeking to minimise in any way, shape or form the concerns and hesitations. As hon. Members have said, trust is a key element. As the right hon. Member for North Antrim and the hon. Members for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) and for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson) have said, the conditions are not right at the moment, and I understand that concern, to which the hon. Members for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) and for South Staffordshire have also referred. I know that there are real issues of trust and confidence, and I listened carefully when the hon. Member for East Londonderry elucidated them.
	We are moving in the right direction. The hon. Member for Aylesbury has already quoted this section of today's IMC report:
	It remains our absolutely clear view that the PIRA leadership has committed itself to following a peaceful path. It is working to bring the whole organisation fully along with it and has expended considerable effort to refocus the movement in support of its objective. In the last three months this process has involved the further dismantling of PIRA as a military structure.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson) and for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) recognised those points in their contributions.
	The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) has said that progress has been made, but that more progress needs to be made. I agree with him and hope to see that happen, but there is evidence that progress is already being made.

David Winnick: Will my hon. Friend reinforce a point that I made in an earlier intervention? Those of us who want to see progress in Northern Ireland, who are in favour of the Belfast agreement and who want to see devolution applied as quickly as possible were no less opposed to terrorism from day one than the DUP and the other parties in Northern Ireland which are represented in the House of Commons.

David Hanson: My hon. Friend has highlighted that very clearly, and I support him in his objective. In the meantime, despite the fact that the IRA is moving in the right direction, we as a Government will not tolerate criminality or paramilitary activity in any way, shape or form, whether from the loyalist or the republican side.

Patrick Cormack: I entirely accept what the Minister says. As a logical consequence of that, should not he convey clearly and unambiguously to Sinn Fein-IRA that the Government have a limit to their patience, and that if conditions have not been met by November, the obvious alternative is to work for a coalition between the three democratic parties whose credentials are not in doubt?

David Hanson: Let us see what happens. I believe that progress is being made and will continue to be made, and that the IMC will back that up.
	The Government will not tolerate criminality and paramilitary activity. On the republican side, in March we undertook operations resulting in 100,000 litres of fuel being seized, with the Criminal Assets Bureau freezing 1 million in cash and cheques found during that search. This week alone, the Assets Recovery Agency secured 140,000 from alleged fuel smuggling, as was mentioned by the hon. Members for East Londonderry, for South Antrim and for Lagan Valley. On the loyalist side, in December the Assets Recovery Agency froze 400,000 from alleged loyalist paramilitaries, and assets of 200,000 were frozen after the murder of the alleged loyalist brigadier, Jim Gray. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee is currently examining how we deal with such issues. Criminality and paramilitary activity will not be tolerated, and the Government will work towards that end, but I believe that the conditions that Members are seeking will be achieved in due course through movements by the Provisional IRA.
	We have to face reality and look to the significant challenges that will ensue. The Bill provides the framework whereby we can facilitate the dialogue for the future. As the hon. Member for Foyle said, individuals have worked together to do things that would have been unthinkable a few years ago. They did not abandon their beliefs in a united Ireland or in an Ireland that has relationships, through Northern Ireland, with the British Government as part of the United Kingdom, but they worked together on issues to do with the economics and day-to-day life of their communities. More than anything else, I want that to happen now.
	Through the Bill, we have set up the Assembly. I know that the hon. Member for North Down has concerns about that, but I say to her and to others that we want it to be able to discuss real issues as well as to elect a First Minister and Deputy First Minister and an Executive, and as soon as possible, I hope, optimistic as I am, to form a Government and return to the full Assembly that the hon. Lady so desires. In the meantime, we have given it the opportunity to discuss and express views on education, the review of public administration, and water charges.
	There has been a serious debate about how the Government will take account of those views in this Chamber. We will listen to what is said and consider the issues that are put to us, but we still have a duty as a Government to govern Northern Ireland in the best interests of its population. Whatever the Assembly that is set up in a fortnight's time may be, it will not be an Executive Assembly until it elects an Executive. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my fellow Ministers have a duty to this House to govern Northern Ireland responsibly, and it would be constitutionally wrong for us to say that we will automatically defer to another body while doing so. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch observed, we have a job to do in Northern Ireland until such time as the Assembly forms an Executive to do that job.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State clearly set out the cost of maintaining the Assembly that has been unable to function. I pay tribute to the Members of the Assembly for the work that they do at the moment.
	I receive delegations on housing, culture, sport and the range of issues for which I am responsible from Members of the Legislative Assembly who are now doing a constituency job. They write letters to me, visit, press us on a range of subjects and publicly comment on issues. They are doing a job but not the job that we are doing todayholding the Executive to account in a Chamber and legislating. I hope and pray that they will do that in due course in the Assembly. However, in the event of that not happening, we have to consider the costs of the Assembly and the way in which we hold elections to a future Assembly. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has set the deadline of 24 November for progress.
	The deadline is not a threatit is simply an embodiment of a political reality. We cannot go on as we have done. We cannot finance a non-functioning Assembly indefinitely or go through the motions of an election next May to an Assembly that does not meet, legislate or hold the Executive to account.
	The process creates the potential for an Assembly to meet on 15 May and elect an Executive, but, if it cannot do that, to discuss some of the issues and reflect the opinions of the 108 elected Members of the Legislative Assembly to my right hon. Friend and me. That is important.
	Some hon. Members rightly asked about Orders in Council. I have said to the hon. Members for Aylesbury, for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), for Montgomeryshire and others that we do not find that procedure especially satisfactory. There are difficulties with it and my right hon. Friend has written to hon. Members to ask for their views on how we can improve the process. However, we have to govern. We have to make decisions and determine how we make progress in future. We have to run Departments. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the Taoiseach and I met business people in Armagh about some of issues on which we govern, they welcomed aspects of what we did. They welcomed some of the changes that we are making in, for example, the review of public administration.
	We will have to listen and we will take representations. There will be an opportunity for the Assembly to present its opinions. However, we are accountable to the House for billions of pounds of public money that my right hon. Friend and I are spending on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland in the absence of the Assembly.
	I hope that the Bill is about success, not failure. We believe that it is the best vehicle for success that can be constructed at the moment. We need the Assembly to be back in place and we must examine how we can make it work for the future. The challenge to all hon. Members is how we do that.
	The hon. Member for North Down mentioned the delay in holding the election. We will discuss that when we consider the amendments tomorrow. We believe that the delay is necessary for the simple reason that, if we get the Assembly operational by October or November, it will work for only a few months before the rigours of an election.

Lady Hermon: Will the Minister give way?

David Hanson: I cannot because of lack of time. We have delayed the election for one year, not to meddle with democracy, as has been alleged, but to give the Assembly the opportunity to bed in, if it is formed, and to be stable and satisfactory for going into an election in future.
	The Government are trying to get the Assembly back up and running. We are setting the framework for it to work. However, the prime movers must be the political parties that represent the people of Northern Ireland. We must move forward on the basis of an accommodation between people in Northern Ireland represented by their political leaders in the Assembly. If the House approves the Bill, the message to the people of Northern Ireland is that we have confidence in them and believe that they can run the affairs of their Province. We will support them in doing that, hand them billions of pounds of Government money to expend on their priorities and give an opportunity locally for them to determine their priorities, so that people who represent constituencies in Neath and north Wales do not choose them on their behalf.
	There is an opportunity for the Assembly to be reformed and to make progress. I hope that, on 15 May, the Assembly will elect an Executive and commence that process. We look forward to considering amendments tomorrow. In the meantime, for the reason that democracy is exercised best when exercised locally by locally accountable people, I commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House, pursuant to Order [this day].
	Committee tomorrow.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Northern Ireland

That the draft Fire and Rescue Services (Northern Ireland) Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 13th March, be approved.[Mr. Coaker.]
	Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9)(European Standing Committees),

Promotion of Clean Road Vehicles

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 5130/06 and Addendum 1, Draft Directive on the promotion of clean road vehicles; and endorses the Government's approach in investigating what the costs and impacts of the proposal on the UK would be and in seeking to so amend the proposal that, if implemented, it would result in the best possible balance between environmental and other benefits, and financial and other burdens on both the public and private sectors.[Mr. Coaker.]
	Question agreed to.

Gisela Stuart: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Are you aware that today we have received information that there have been arrests in Birmingham in relation to allegations of serious misconduct in relation to postal votes? Given that one of the people arrested is said to be a close relative of a leading Lib Dem candidate in the city of Birmingham, will you use your good offices to ensure that everything is done to ensure that the local election result in Birmingham is a fair and proper one?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I understand the concern expressed by the hon. Lady, but it is not a point of order for the Chair.

PETITIONS
	  
	Asbestos Storage

Bob Spink: I rise to present a petition compiled by Linda and Lenny Green and others to raise awareness of an asbestos plant on the Manor trading estate in Benfleet. I entirely agree with the terms of the petition. The asbestos plant is completely inappropriate and there are far better sites for it.
	The Petition of the residents of Thundersley and Benfleet,
	Declares that the proposal for change of use of Unit 10 to allow the storage of hazardous waste such as asbestos on the Manor Trading Estate in Thundersley would introduce unacceptable risk and increased pressure of use of local roads and is particularly inappropriate in view of the immediate proximity of residential homes and a primary school. The petitioners further believe there are much more appropriate sites for this activity in the local area.
	The Petitioners therefore implore the House of Commons to call upon the Government to do all within its power to ensure that Essex County Council reject the application as requested by the Member of Parliament for Castle Point.
	To lie upon the Table.

Traffic Calming

Bob Spink: I have now in my hands a major petition organised by Councillor Gail Boland of Boyce ward, signed by almost 2,000 people. Councillor Boland has worked tirelessly for her residents on this and many other issues. She has made it clear that she does not want speed bumps, and that she just wants vehicle-activated LED speed signs.
	The petition states:
	To the House of Commons
	The Petition of the people living in and around Boyce and St. Mary's Wards, Castle Point, declares that we the residents of Benfleet and surrounding areas are concerned about the increasing dangers in the High Road Benfleet, in the Queens Road and Vicarage Hill area, for pedestrians and particularly children and elderly people, and we therefore call for an investigation into the best scheme for traffic calming and particularly the consideration of a changed road surface with 'flash-up-your-speed' signs, for the benefit of both residents and road users.
	The Petitioners therefore call on the House of Commons to urge the Government to impress upon Castle Point Borough Council and the Highway Authority the importance of serving local people by providing improved pedestrian safety particularly for our children and elderly people.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Milton Keynes

Mark Lancaster: It is my privilege to present the petition of my constituent Mr. Andrew Geary of Hanslope and many others, who are understandably incensed by the Government's attempts to impose expansion plans on Milton Keynes via unelected and unaccountable quangos.
	The Petition of the citizens of Milton Keynes
	Declares that for any community to be 'sustainable' the plans for its expansion must be supported by existing residents and that Milton Keynes Partnerships' 'Public Consultation' process was not long enough to fully involve the Citizens of Milton Keynes in the decision making process regarding the 2031 Milton Keynes expansion plans.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to set up a local referendum to decide:
	If the expansion planning and delivery should be returned to those who are democratically elected to represent and service the people of Milton Keynes and the surrounding area.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Miners' Welfare Institutes

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Roy.]

Denis Murphy: I am grateful to the House for allowing me this debate. With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall explain the history and background of miners' welfare institutes and the important role that they continue to play in the life of the communities that they now serve.
	Many miners' welfare institutes were established at the turn of the last century. They were funded from a weekly contribution paid by every working miner. They provided excellent support and recreational facilities that were used not just by miners but the whole community. The specific case that I raise tonight is that of Hirst welfare in Ashington, but VAT affects scores of similar organisations throughout the country.
	The original Hirst welfare was established through the Ashington coal company and a variety of facilities were provided for the local community, including both buildings and recreation grounds. Hirst welfare was where Jackie Milburn honed his remarkable skills and Bobby and Jackie Charlton first played football. More recently, it was where the world's finest fast bowler, Steve Harmison, developed his love for cricket. It was where generations of young men played sports, particularly football, in a spirit sadly long gone, that gave the welfare leagues a reputation for skill and toughness that was certainly not for the faint-hearted.
	In 1966, through the creation of the Miners' Welfare Commission, and its successor the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation, CISWO, the Ashington Joint Welfare Group of Schemes was formed. It was registered with the Charity Commission, and was established to manage six community facilities across south-east Northumberland. Those facilities were Hirst welfare, Ashington recreation ground and the welfares at Linton, Newbiggin, Lynemouth and Pegswood. The charity continued to manage those facilities through a group oftrustees and individual management committees consisting of local residents and representatives from the then local collieries.
	It is important to point out that while CISWO was funded by a levy on each tonne of coal mined nationally, the organisation and all the activities at each welfare site were still funded by levies agreed and deducted from individual miners' wages. It was therefore inevitable that, when the collieries started to close and the funding began to dry up, the organisation began to struggle to maintain its operations. As a result, four of the sites were transferred to local authorities in the 1980s. Linton, Lynemouth and Pegswood welfares were transferred to Castle Morpeth borough council and Newbiggin welfare was transferred to Wansbeck district council. That was also a difficult time for the local authorities, as the then Conservative Government forced year-on-year severe cuts in local government funding. It is to the credit of the local authorities that I mentioned that they managed to hold on to those community assets for so long.
	The charity continued to manage Hirst welfare and Ashington recreation ground. In 1995, however, its financial difficulties could not be overcome, with the closure under British Coal of Ellington colliery being the final nail in the coffin resulting in the loss of all its income. The centre was closed in 1996 and demolished in 1997 on safety grounds. It was a sad sight. Rose bay willow herb and broken glass, synonymous in many ways with the dereliction of abandoned coal mine sites, was now invading the heart of the community and covered the turf that was once graced by Ashington's and Britain's greatest world-class athletes.
	The situation was made much more difficult by the site then being in the middle of four wards suffering the highest deprivation levels in Northumberland. The Hirst is situated in the south-east of Ashington with a population of about 8,000 people living in 3,500 densely built houses and flats. On the index of multiple deprivation, all those wards featured in the bottom 10 per cent. nationally. In response to both deprivation and the lack of services, Wansbeck district council commissioned a number of reports. The first, produced in 1997, dealt with the Hirst regeneration. The second, produced in 2000, was the Ashington investment study. The final one, which I understand was completed in 2001, was the Wansbeck community appraisal. Although the reports dealt with different issues, they all recommended the creation of a community facility that could provide a range of services and give the community an identity.
	At about the same time, in 1997, the newly elected Labour Government recognised the unique problems faced by coalfield communities as a result of the decline of the mining industry. In October that year, the Government established the coalfield taskforce to provide initiatives to help former mining communities. The taskforce's report Making the Difference was published in June 1998, and set out a programme of action to combat the deprivation faced by those communities. Here at last, many of us thought, was a real opportunity to provide much-needed facilities. The Government should be congratulated on an initiative that has made a significant contribution to the improvement of former coalfield areas.
	One of the most important and relevant recommendations from the taskforce concerned one-stop shops. The report stated
	We believe that there is an exciting opportunity to adopt the one stop shop model much more widely to integrate both government and voluntary sector provision in a way that will promote collaboration rather than competition between local organisations. In choosing a suitable building, the Miners Welfare will often be the obvious first choice. One stop shops should aim to incorporate the widest possible range of co-located partners, and the services offered should be designed to appeal to all sections of the community. These might include new recreational and health facilities for ex-miners; a resource centre for those seeking work, perhaps including a part-time Employment Service outreach facility and childcare services; and sports facilities and youth clubs for the younger generation.
	As a result of that recommendation, CISWO secured funding from the National Lottery Charities Board for its one-stop shop project, enabling seven full-time staff to be employed across the English, Scottish and Welsh coalfields to help 25 miners' welfare schemes redevelop and become one-stop shops. In 2000, Wansbeck district council approached CISWO and requested that a new Hirst welfare centre be included in the one-stop shop programme. It was approved, and a new partnership was formed to implement the project. Funding was secured for a joint feasibility study to run alongside the upgrading of Hirst park, which is close to the welfare centre. There were substantial consultations with the community, and a number of options were prepared.
	In 2002, work began to secure the necessary funding, which was in place by November 2003 when the contracts were let. The new Hirst welfare centre was completed and opened to the public in December 2004. It is a tremendous achievement and, genuinely, a huge success.
	The euphoria was short-lived. A demand for 85,000 in VAT on the project arrived recently from Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. That came as a complete surprise to the trustees. When the feasibility study was carried out, the design team contacted Customs and Excise, which said that the project would be zero-rated because it was new build. As a result of the VAT reclaimed on the project, it has gone into the capital goods scheme, which means that the project will be assessed by Customs and Excise every year for the next 10 years.
	I spoke to the trustees today. They informed me that they had borrowed the money to pay the VAT from the miners' trust fund, and would pay it back over 10 years. That cannot be right. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to review the VAT position at the Hirst welfare centre, to ensure that the money remains in the community where those who provided it intended all of it to be used.
	The trustees argued that the project should be treated as a village hall or something similar, in order to obtain zero rating. It is important for the next few minutes to examine the reasons why Customs and Excise would not accept that description. Its interpretation of a village hall or similar was based on locationit had to be easily accessible by most members of the local communityand on the building: village halls vary according to needs and resources, but they tend to be small. Management and administration should be vested in local village hall trustees. Income should come mainly from charges and there should be limited kitchen, sports and play equipment. A crche could be provided, and the staff would usually consist of volunteers. A wide range of activities should take place in such places, including private parties, committee meetings, jumble sales, wedding receptions, parish council meetings, women's institute meetings, polling stations, dances, discos, senior citizens' clubs, playgroups and blood transfusionsin other words, anything that is relevant to a particular community.
	Customs and Excise did not agree that the Hirst welfare centre fitted the village hall description for the following four reasons. First, its size exceeded the typical village hall definition; secondly, turnover exceeded that typically expected in a village hall; thirdly, staff are employed to work in the centre; fourthly, the gym equipment is assembled on a permanent basis.
	The size of the centre was determined in many ways by Government policy and the requirements of the funding partnersit is indeed a one-stop shop. The organisations based in the centre are: Wansbeck district council information point, a healthy living centre, a toy library, East Ashington fun club, a power-lifting club, action team for jobs, a citizens advice bureau, the National Union of Mineworkers' and the Regeneration Trust's skills building project, and Hirst high school. The organisations delivering services from that site are the primary care trust, Barnado's, Sure Start, the youth   offending service, the probation service, the Football Association, several community partnerships, Jobcentre Plus, Connexions, the teenage pregnancy unit, the education action zone and out-of-school clubs.
	The uses to which the centre is put are many and varied. They include, among many others, salsa dancing, aerobics, boxing training, tea dances, karate, wrestling, FA coaching, football training for boys and girls of all ages and information technology courses. The size of the centre and its staffing and income therefore fit the needs of the community perfectly. All the outreach facilities and courses are tailored to serve the needs of the individuals who live in that community.
	The role of miners' welfare schemes and community buildings such as village halls has changed dramatically since the VAT rules were last reviewed some 10 years ago. No longer are such facilities used on an ad hoc basis; they are now vital community resources that are used to deliver front-line services to help local communities regenerate. Through charging VAT on the capital costs of multi-use community facilities, Customs and Excise is diverting much needed finance from such front-line services. It is forcing local community organisations to raise substantial funding from one Government source to give to another. Often, it is the VAT element of a capital project that determines whether a programme succeeds.
	The case that I have raised concerns new build, but I should like the Minister to note that the same arguments apply to the refurbishment of miners' welfare institutes, for which VAT should also be zero-rated. I hope that he can examine in some detail the case that I have raised tonight and review the rules on VAT, so that all the funds raised for this project are used to benefit the community served by Hirst welfare centre.

Ivan Lewis: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy) on securing this Adjournment debate. He has raised an issue that is important not only to his constituents, but to others.
	There is no doubt, as my hon. Friend has said, that miners' welfare institutes and similar facilities play a very important role in their communities. I applaud the contribution, often voluntary, that the committees and trustees of these organisations make to their communities. The Government have recognised, as my hon. Friend acknowledged, that current and former mining areas present many challenges. As the coalfields' taskforce report summed it up, the coalfields have
	a unique combination of concentrated joblessness, physical isolation, poor infrastructure and severe health problems.
	The Government are committed to thriving, sustainable communities and to making that commitment real for coalfield areas. As my hon. Friend said, we have established the national coalfield programme; a 10-year, 500 million commitment. We have also created the Coalfields Regeneration Trust, which has become a central player in the social regeneration of pit communities, including providing support to thousands of community groups. We have also made support available through the sustainable communities plan, the coalfield enterprise fund, regional development agencies, local authorities and English Partnership.
	I therefore hope that my hon. Friend will agree that there is no lack of determination on the part of the Government and their local partnersbacked by significant resourcesto help tackle problems faced in coalfield areas, and to support the social regeneration of pit communities. My hon. Friend was gracious enough to acknowledge that that is an accurate description of what the Government have tried to do since 1997.
	I now turn specifically to the VAT rules. I should explain that the VAT treatment of construction work is mainly the product of the historical development of the tax decisions taken by previous Governments. When VAT was introduced in 1973, zero rating applied to the construction, extension and alteration of all buildings. However, the then Government decided not to apply that relief to any service of repair, maintenance, or refurbishment of any building, except for a small number of alterations made to listed buildings or to facilitate access and use by disabled people. Following a European Court ruling, the VAT relief for commercial construction was withdrawn in 1989.
	The current position is therefore that VAT relief applies only to the construction of certain new residential and new charitable buildings. In the case of charitable buildings, that VAT relief for new constructions applies only if the building will be used by a charity solely as a village hall or similarly in providing social or recreational facilities for a local community, or less than 10 per cent. for a non-business use; for example, an activity for which no charge is made.
	VAT has always been chargeable on repairs, maintenance and refurbishment for all types of buildings, although there is some limited relief in relation to alterations to listed buildings, or alterations to certain buildings to facilitate access and use by disabled people, as I have said.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to the circumstances of Hirst welfare centre in his constituency. It clearly has an august history, as some of the great sportsmen and women of this country began to develop their interest in sport there. As a Manchester City fan, I will not hold it against my hon. Friend that Bobby Charlton learned his trade at the Hirst welfare centre.
	As my hon. Friend is aware, the administration of VAT reliefs set down by Parliament is a matter for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on this, or any other specific case. As I have said, there is VAT relief in certain circumstances for new constructions of, for example, village halls and it may be that a newly built miners' welfare institute could qualify for that relief. The building would have to be for use by a charity. As my hon. Friend said, there should be a high degree of local community involvement in its operation and activities, which should be predominantly social and/or recreational and no part of the building should be dedicated exclusively to a non-social or non-recreational activity. However, as has always been the case, even if the building were to qualify as a village hall, VAT relief would not extend to repairs, refurbishment or alterations, except in the circumstances that I have already described.
	If the Hirst welfare centre believes that it qualifies for VAT relief, there are well established procedures in place for HMRC to consider or reconsider the VAT treatment that should apply, and I would strongly encourage the trustees and my hon. Friend to pursue those. If there is still no agreement, an appeal may be made to the independent VAT and duties tribunal to decide the matter.
	If it were to transpire that the Hirst welfare centre, having disclosed all relevant facts to HMRC, relied upon an incorrect ruling from HMRCas my hon. Friend suggested might have been the caseand undertook a construction project on the understanding that no VAT would be incurred, HMRC would consider whether an ex gratia payment, equal to the VAT incurred, would be appropriate.
	That is a matter for HMRC, and one in which it would be inappropriate for me to intervene directly. However, in such circumstances, provision exists for HMRC to use discretion. If my hon. Friend is right about the assurances given at the beginning of the process, that might be a useful avenue for him and the trustees to pursue.
	My hon. Friend may ask whether anything can be done to remove VAT costs in this and similar situations. I should make it clear that, under the normal VAT rules, VAT chargeable on any construction work can be reclaimed by a VAT-registered miners' institute through the VAT system, when it relates to taxable business activities such as bar sales. Therefore, provided that the institute is VAT-registered, we would expect at least some of the VAT cost to be reclaimable.
	However, the fundamental principles of the tax system mean that VAT is not chargeable on exempt or non-business activities, and that the supplier is unable to reclaim VAT costs incurred in providing those activities. The same applies to all the activities of organisations that are not registered for VAT.
	The VAT rules apply equally to all businesses, charities or community groups. I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that the situation that he describes is not unique to miners' institutes. Many other groups are in a comparable position, in that they provide a range of facilities or services to the community and are subject to the same VAT rules. For that reason, when community bodies or charities bid for funding for capital projects, it is usual for the bids to take into account any irrecoverable VAT costs.
	As my hon. Friend is probably aware, VAT reliefs are governed by European agreements, entered into by successive Governments, that mean that we cannot extend existing VAT reliefs or introduce new ones. Therefore, it is simply not possible to introduce a zero rate for the repair or refurbishment of miners' institutes and community facilities, for example, or to extend the existing VAT relief for new constructions. Similarly, the availability of reduced VAT rates is governed by European agreements that provide no scope for the introduction of a reduced rate for the repair or refurbishment of any buildings other than housing.
	As European agreements mean that it is not possible to extend the existing VAT reliefs, my hon. Friend might ask why we do not simply undertake to refund or compensate an institute for any VAT that is not reclaimable through the VAT system. Such a solution would not be without major difficulties, although of course we recognise the broader problem that irrecoverable VAT can create for charities and community groups. The issue has been considered in two major reviews since 1997.
	The reviews led us to two basic conclusions. First, we concluded that it would not be an affordable or efficient use of public resources to reimburse all charitable, voluntary and community bodies in the UK for the VAT that they incur, regardless of the activities that they are involved in or their financial health. Secondly, we determined that there was no fair and principled basis on which we could decide that some organisations would be reimbursed their VAT and others would not. That remains the Government's position.
	We have therefore chosen to provide support to achieve our social priorities outside the VAT system. I have mentioned one example already; the benefit accruing tocoalfield areas from the Government's 10-year, 500-million commitment to social regeneration.
	My hon. Friend has raised an important issue and shone a light on a matter that otherwise would not get attention at this level. I listened carefully to what he said. As I noted earlier, I cannot comment on the specific case that he mentioned, other than to say that HMRC administers the VAT rules set down by Parliament and interpreted by the courts over the years. Well established arrangements are in place to settle disputes about the application of the rules and about what should happen if a fully informed officer of HMRC gives a wrong decision that in the end is to the detriment of taxpayers.
	My hon. Friend has made an important case this evening. I urge him and the trustees of Hirst welfare centre to approach HMRC at a senior level and argue that there should be a different outcome in these circumstances. In addition, although I cannot intervene directly in the matter, I am certainly willing to facilitate contact between him and his trustees and senior officers in HMRC.
	Given the constraints placed on me, I hope that my hon. Friend will find my response helpful. Moreover, I hope that the Hirst welfare centre trustees will see from the debate that their constituency representative has raised the matter in a responsible and effective manner and that, where possible, the Government will listen to the representations made to them.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at half-past Seven o'clock.

Deferred Division

Northern Ireland

That the draft Local Government (Boundaries) (Northern Ireland) Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 22 March, be approved.
	The House divided: Ayes 262, Noes 184.

Question accordingly agreed to.